EDIT: Forgot to include figures for Russian Muslims – it is at ~6%, about same as Tajikistan. See comment.

These figures were derived on the basis of the percentage of Muslims who agreed that sharia should be the law of the land, and in turn on the percentage of sharia supporters who agree with capital punishment for apostates from Islam, as prescribed in tradition. As Razib Khan points out, these figures represent a minimum, because there might be a few Muslims who don’t support sharia law but support the death penalty for apostasy. Nonetheless, such cases will be few and far between, so the figures can probably be taken more or less at face value.

Commentary is largely superfluous, so I will limit myself to just a few remarks:

(1) A solid majority of Muslims in Egypt support the death penalty. Conservatively assuming 80% of the population is Sunni Muslim, that’s 51% of the population that are essentially Islamist extremists and potential Islamic State sympathizes. That also happens to be the exact percentage that voted for Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi in 2012. This probably makes liberal democracy in Egypt all but impossible: Its either the mustachioed soldiers or the bearded preachers. Choose one.

(2) The majority of Muslims in Malaysia and Jordan, both countries widely seen as “moderate,” support the dealth penalty for apostasy.

(3) The only country of the Arab Spring to transition to a more or less functioning democracy is Tunisia. Probably not coincidentally, it is also the most religiously “progressive” of all the Arab states. In those areas where the Islamic State has been taking power – northern Iraq, eastern Syria, the Sinai, the central Libyan coast, chunks of Afghanistan – it appears that the local population supports the death penalty for apostasy and other extremist interpretations of Islam, far more so than even in the rest of the world. Perhaps ~50% is a sort of “tipping point” for the most rabidly chiliastic Islamist cults to take root?

Anyone who supports the death penalty for religious apostasy is, by definition, a fundamentalist. In many, perhaps most, Muslim countries, a majority or close to a majority qualifies as such.

There are very, very big and disturbing figures.

That famous “Moderate Muslim” infographic: Not the same thing as a moderate Christian or Buddhist.

It is highly unlikely would find more than 1% of Christians in any country supporting the death penalty for apostasy, and even that 1% would as often as not be merely trolling the pollster. The only surveyed major Muslim countries with a comparable level of insanity are Kazakhstan and possibly Turkey. Regardless of 70 years of secular propaganda, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have three to five times the number of fundamentalists per capita, with 5-6% of their Muslim population supporting death for apostasy; though still an order of magnitude better than neighboring Afpak and the Middle East, these figures can already make themselves felt in events such as the defection of a senior Tajik policeman to the Islamic State.

It only gets worse from there on. Tunisia, with 16% of the population being fundamentalists, gets regularly wracked by terrorist strikes; Bangladesh, with 33%, sees atheist bloggers murdered with impunity. The percentage of Muslims who are fundamentalists in Western Europe is (based on other polls) probably generally around the 25% mark. That is a lot of fundamentalists. And it translates to a permanent, simmering terrorist threat. Which – rather conveniently? – requires an ever expanding security/surveillance state to keep suppressed. Once you go above the 50% mark, as in Jordan, Pakistan, or Egypt, only a dictator or a well-respected monarch prevents the people – the demos – from actualizing their back-to-the-roots fantasies.

This is why apples to apples comparisons of Islamic fundamentalism to extremism in other religions and feel good slogans like #NotAllMuslims are naive and facile at best.

This is a general trend in Sunni Islam, and there’s no sign of it abating any time soon. About 15 years ago in the uk, it was rare to see hooded women, and if they did cover their hair, the cover would be loosely fitting and part of a traditional national costume, now head coverings amongst muslim women are unanimous.

On a side note, is there any polling data for these attitudes in Russian regions? I suspect Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan is as bad as the worst of the middle east, the rest of the North Caucasus similar to Turkey and Tatrar/Bashkir areas < 1%. There was a poll a while back (by pew I think) that had this figure for Russian muslims as a whole in the teens.

About 15 years ago in the uk, it was rare to see hooded women, and if they did cover their hair, the cover would be loosely fitting and part of a traditional national costume, now head coverings amongst muslim women are unanimous.

One of my female acquaintances who does happen to look a bit southern but otherwise has no connection to Islam whatsoever got verbally harassed by a Muslim in a supermarket for going about with her face uncovered. This is a very real trend.

I suspect Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan is as bad as the worst of the middle east, the rest of the North Caucasus similar to Turkey and Tatrar/Bashkir areas < 1%.

That is very likely correct.

This is the poll you are referring to: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Actually I notice that it is the same one referenced here. For some reason Razib didn't include the figures for Russia's Muslims (pity I didn't see this, as adjusting the map now would be a lot of work). Anyhow, according to that, 42% of Russian Muslims support sharia, of which 15% favor the death penalty for apostasy, making for 6% of Russian Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy - similar to the figure for Tajikistan.

Of course, as you say, Tatars and Bashkirs together make up the majority of Muslims in Russia, and both are very likely at <2%, so the figures I suspect are probably more like 10-15% for Dagestan and perhaps 25% for Chechnya.

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

This is a general trend in Sunni Islam, and there's no sign of it abating any time soon. About 15 years ago in the uk, it was rare to see hooded women, and if they did cover their hair, the cover would be loosely fitting and part of a traditional national costume, now head coverings amongst muslim women are unanimous.

On a side note, is there any polling data for these attitudes in Russian regions? I suspect Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan is as bad as the worst of the middle east, the rest of the North Caucasus similar to Turkey and Tatrar/Bashkir areas < 1%. There was a poll a while back (by pew I think) that had this figure for Russian muslims as a whole in the teens.

Your perception is partly caused by the fact that the Muslim population has more than doubled since then!

I’m guessing that it has grown by 150% in the 15 years.

This leads to assertiveness in numbers, plain greater numbers, of course, and there has been something of a retro-Islamist revival. To be honest, I see the attraction.

The whole thing is quite cool and quite appealing. Pity about the second order effects though.

This is a general trend in Sunni Islam, and there's no sign of it abating any time soon. About 15 years ago in the uk, it was rare to see hooded women, and if they did cover their hair, the cover would be loosely fitting and part of a traditional national costume, now head coverings amongst muslim women are unanimous.

On a side note, is there any polling data for these attitudes in Russian regions? I suspect Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan is as bad as the worst of the middle east, the rest of the North Caucasus similar to Turkey and Tatrar/Bashkir areas < 1%. There was a poll a while back (by pew I think) that had this figure for Russian muslims as a whole in the teens.

About 15 years ago in the uk, it was rare to see hooded women, and if they did cover their hair, the cover would be loosely fitting and part of a traditional national costume, now head coverings amongst muslim women are unanimous.

One of my female acquaintances who does happen to look a bit southern but otherwise has no connection to Islam whatsoever got verbally harassed by a Muslim in a supermarket for going about with her face uncovered. This is a very real trend.

I suspect Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan is as bad as the worst of the middle east, the rest of the North Caucasus similar to Turkey and Tatrar/Bashkir areas < 1%.

Actually I notice that it is the same one referenced here. For some reason Razib didn’t include the figures for Russia’s Muslims (pity I didn’t see this, as adjusting the map now would be a lot of work). Anyhow, according to that, 42% of Russian Muslims support sharia, of which 15% favor the death penalty for apostasy, making for 6% of Russian Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy – similar to the figure for Tajikistan.

Of course, as you say, Tatars and Bashkirs together make up the majority of Muslims in Russia, and both are very likely at <2%, so the figures I suspect are probably more like 10-15% for Dagestan and perhaps 25% for Chechnya.

I'd expect Daghestan to be worse than Chechnya, considering that it is the current hotbed of Fundamentalism. From what I have heard, it is becoming an increasingly uncomfortable place to live for those who are secular. Kadyrov OTOH has largely managed to suppress local Fundamentalist activity (along with all other opposition, unfortunately). Daghestan is much more free and open, but that also makes it an easier target for Fundamentalist propaganda.

One of my female acquaintances who does happen to look a bit southern but otherwise has no connection to Islam whatsoever got verbally harassed by a Muslim in a supermarket for going about with her face uncovered.

Excuse me, Mr. Karlin. I don't believe this story. It does not ring true to me. Were you there?

When you say she was harassed for going about with her face uncovered, surely you mean her hair, no? You do understand the difference between the niqab and the hijab, don't you? Or do you?

This is a very real trend.

A trend, eh? Don't you need more than one data point to have a "trend"?

Well, the above is enough of a a data point for me to conclude that, unfortunately, you're full of shit.

About 15 years ago in the uk, it was rare to see hooded women, and if they did cover their hair, the cover would be loosely fitting and part of a traditional national costume, now head coverings amongst muslim women are unanimous.

One of my female acquaintances who does happen to look a bit southern but otherwise has no connection to Islam whatsoever got verbally harassed by a Muslim in a supermarket for going about with her face uncovered. This is a very real trend.

I suspect Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan is as bad as the worst of the middle east, the rest of the North Caucasus similar to Turkey and Tatrar/Bashkir areas < 1%.

That is very likely correct.

This is the poll you are referring to: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Actually I notice that it is the same one referenced here. For some reason Razib didn't include the figures for Russia's Muslims (pity I didn't see this, as adjusting the map now would be a lot of work). Anyhow, according to that, 42% of Russian Muslims support sharia, of which 15% favor the death penalty for apostasy, making for 6% of Russian Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy - similar to the figure for Tajikistan.

Of course, as you say, Tatars and Bashkirs together make up the majority of Muslims in Russia, and both are very likely at <2%, so the figures I suspect are probably more like 10-15% for Dagestan and perhaps 25% for Chechnya.

I’d expect Daghestan to be worse than Chechnya, considering that it is the current hotbed of Fundamentalism. From what I have heard, it is becoming an increasingly uncomfortable place to live for those who are secular. Kadyrov OTOH has largely managed to suppress local Fundamentalist activity (along with all other opposition, unfortunately). Daghestan is much more free and open, but that also makes it an easier target for Fundamentalist propaganda.

Kadyrov produces "totalitarian"-like 99% turnout/99% vote results for his current liege lord, who happens to be Putin. The really radical and anti-regime Islamists are "disappeared," but Chechnya has otherwise been implementing what can be described as "Islamism lite" in its internal affairs. Ingushetia has by far Russia's highest unemployment rate, at almost 50%, and the only reason Chechnya is lower at 30% is because of the amount of money that the federal center pours into it.

The Dagestanis are relatively more cosmopolitan. They produce 90% turnout/90% vote results which is more typical of authoritarian Arab regimes (e.g. Mubarak's Egypt), Azerbaijan, etc., i.e. those states which are not hardline enough to solve their Islamist problems in a Nacht und Nebel like fashion. Unemploment is much lower ~10%, which suggests that by and large they can function adequately in an industrial economy. Dagestan's average IQ of ~88 (as per PISA) is just a bit below Turkey's, and far higher than in Kyrgyzstan, which is was so abysmally low on the PISA (~75) that even I am convinced it must have been a fluke.

All this means it is perfectly possibly for Chechens to be a lot more fundamentalist on average than Dagestanis but for it to be less obvious. Considering the crazy over-representation of Chechens in Islamist terrorism around the world, I suspect this is almost certainly the case.

I'd expect Daghestan to be worse than Chechnya, considering that it is the current hotbed of Fundamentalism. From what I have heard, it is becoming an increasingly uncomfortable place to live for those who are secular. Kadyrov OTOH has largely managed to suppress local Fundamentalist activity (along with all other opposition, unfortunately). Daghestan is much more free and open, but that also makes it an easier target for Fundamentalist propaganda.

You answered your own question!

Kadyrov produces “totalitarian”-like 99% turnout/99% vote results for his current liege lord, who happens to be Putin. The really radical and anti-regime Islamists are “disappeared,” but Chechnya has otherwise been implementing what can be described as “Islamism lite” in its internal affairs. Ingushetia has by far Russia’s highest unemployment rate, at almost 50%, and the only reason Chechnya is lower at 30% is because of the amount of money that the federal center pours into it.

The Dagestanis are relatively more cosmopolitan. They produce 90% turnout/90% vote results which is more typical of authoritarian Arab regimes (e.g. Mubarak’s Egypt), Azerbaijan, etc., i.e. those states which are not hardline enough to solve their Islamist problems in a Nacht und Nebel like fashion. Unemploment is much lower ~10%, which suggests that by and large they can function adequately in an industrial economy. Dagestan’s average IQ of ~88 (as per PISA) is just a bit below Turkey’s, and far higher than in Kyrgyzstan, which is was so abysmally low on the PISA (~75) that even I am convinced it must have been a fluke.

All this means it is perfectly possibly for Chechens to be a lot more fundamentalist on average than Dagestanis but for it to be less obvious. Considering the crazy over-representation of Chechens in Islamist terrorism around the world, I suspect this is almost certainly the case.

True, it is possible for Dagestan to have both more extreme fundamentalists and more normal people. Unfortunately, the normal people are showing a tendency to get the hell out of there, which means it is drifting towards a population that is both more fundamentalist and less cultured, with all those villagers climbing down from the mountains and taking over the cities.

Another thing that is interesting is that, in theory, Chechens should have a higher IQ than Daghestanis, because Chechens do not practice cousin marriage, while most ethnic groups in Daghestan were (and still to a certain extent are) quite fond of it. Chechens also seem to have the most Northern European genes of the ethnic groups in the North Caucasus, which give them their light colouring and make them least 'Caucasian'-looking (whether because of the women they used to steal from up North, or something else, I am not sure). But if they in fact have higher IQ, it does not seem to have translated into a societal advantage.

Kadyrov produces "totalitarian"-like 99% turnout/99% vote results for his current liege lord, who happens to be Putin. The really radical and anti-regime Islamists are "disappeared," but Chechnya has otherwise been implementing what can be described as "Islamism lite" in its internal affairs. Ingushetia has by far Russia's highest unemployment rate, at almost 50%, and the only reason Chechnya is lower at 30% is because of the amount of money that the federal center pours into it.

The Dagestanis are relatively more cosmopolitan. They produce 90% turnout/90% vote results which is more typical of authoritarian Arab regimes (e.g. Mubarak's Egypt), Azerbaijan, etc., i.e. those states which are not hardline enough to solve their Islamist problems in a Nacht und Nebel like fashion. Unemploment is much lower ~10%, which suggests that by and large they can function adequately in an industrial economy. Dagestan's average IQ of ~88 (as per PISA) is just a bit below Turkey's, and far higher than in Kyrgyzstan, which is was so abysmally low on the PISA (~75) that even I am convinced it must have been a fluke.

All this means it is perfectly possibly for Chechens to be a lot more fundamentalist on average than Dagestanis but for it to be less obvious. Considering the crazy over-representation of Chechens in Islamist terrorism around the world, I suspect this is almost certainly the case.

True, it is possible for Dagestan to have both more extreme fundamentalists and more normal people. Unfortunately, the normal people are showing a tendency to get the hell out of there, which means it is drifting towards a population that is both more fundamentalist and less cultured, with all those villagers climbing down from the mountains and taking over the cities.

I find quite frightening Razib’s other observation regarding how religions are becoming more monolithic (with the periphery of the religion starting to copy the center) in terms of doctrine and how this affects Islam (where everybody is unfortunately moving closer to Saudi Arabia instead of say Albania).

As far as I know, the Chechens only converted to Islam a few centuries ago (maybe in the 18th century or so), and probably they weren’t too fundamentalist about it until quite recently. Probably until the 1990s or so. This is a frightening trend, to say the least.

Do you know the Chechens used to be Christians before the 17th century? Do you know Erdogan parents and origins are from Rize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rize. A northeastern Turkish city, well known to be a former Georgian-Laz speaking province. Most of it's inhabitants were georgians 200 years. They still are, we just call them Turks and Muslim now.

That city is now a hotbed of Islamic Turkish movement.

Both Chechens and Rize are really trying to make up for all that time that they were infidels.Which is why some of this HBD bullshit strikes me as hit-and-miss a lot of the time.

Why aren't the worst islamic fundamentalists in Turkey from, say, Istanbul? A city literally brutally conquered by Seljuq warriors a thousand years ago, and has been Muslim ever since. And yet AKP barely reaches 30% popularity in votes there.

Just wait and see. Today 80% of Pakistan wants death for apostasy. In 50 years it will be 30%, in another 50 3%.

I find quite frightening Razib's other observation regarding how religions are becoming more monolithic (with the periphery of the religion starting to copy the center) in terms of doctrine and how this affects Islam (where everybody is unfortunately moving closer to Saudi Arabia instead of say Albania).

As far as I know, the Chechens only converted to Islam a few centuries ago (maybe in the 18th century or so), and probably they weren't too fundamentalist about it until quite recently. Probably until the 1990s or so. This is a frightening trend, to say the least.

Oh brother….you have no idea.

Do you know the Chechens used to be Christians before the 17th century? Do you know Erdogan parents and origins are from Rize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rize. A northeastern Turkish city, well known to be a former Georgian-Laz speaking province. Most of it’s inhabitants were georgians 200 years. They still are, we just call them Turks and Muslim now.

That city is now a hotbed of Islamic Turkish movement.

Both Chechens and Rize are really trying to make up for all that time that they were infidels.Which is why some of this HBD bullshit strikes me as hit-and-miss a lot of the time.

Why aren’t the worst islamic fundamentalists in Turkey from, say, Istanbul? A city literally brutally conquered by Seljuq warriors a thousand years ago, and has been Muslim ever since. And yet AKP barely reaches 30% popularity in votes there.

Just wait and see. Today 80% of Pakistan wants death for apostasy. In 50 years it will be 30%, in another 50 3%.

Do you know the Chechens used to be Christians before the 17th century?

I wrote they only converted a few centuries ago. It took them quite some time to come around to Wahhabism.

Today 80% of Pakistan wants death for apostasy. In 50 years it will be 30%, in another 50 3%.

Pakistanis have been Muslims for a longer time than Chechens. But in any event, I'm highly doubtful that it will happen.

Turks are part European (actually, having met quite a few of them, I'd think Turks could be predominantly European, albeit a less domesticated version Europeans), but Wahhabism is getting a foothold even among them (and Albanians, Bosniaks, who are basically fully Europeans, but similarly to the Serbs, are a less domesticated version), simply because of the process Razib Khan described.

Also what is the socioeconomic position of Tatars in Russia relative to ethnic Russians and other Muslims? They don’t strike me as unintelligent (like most Muslim ethnic groups) and they also seem moderate in their practice of religion.

Tatarstan is one of the better-off Russian regions. Tatars outside of Tatarstan also seem to do fine, in my experience. They are the Muslim ethnic group that is the least different from Russians culturally. This has historic roots, as they were both neighbours and a similar kind of agricultural community, unlike other Turkic groups in the regions who were nomads (e.g. Bashkirs). Their level of religiosity is also roughly the same, i.e. the Muslim equivalent of "Christmas and Easter" Christians.

Do you know the Chechens used to be Christians before the 17th century? Do you know Erdogan parents and origins are from Rize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rize. A northeastern Turkish city, well known to be a former Georgian-Laz speaking province. Most of it's inhabitants were georgians 200 years. They still are, we just call them Turks and Muslim now.

That city is now a hotbed of Islamic Turkish movement.

Both Chechens and Rize are really trying to make up for all that time that they were infidels.Which is why some of this HBD bullshit strikes me as hit-and-miss a lot of the time.

Why aren't the worst islamic fundamentalists in Turkey from, say, Istanbul? A city literally brutally conquered by Seljuq warriors a thousand years ago, and has been Muslim ever since. And yet AKP barely reaches 30% popularity in votes there.

Just wait and see. Today 80% of Pakistan wants death for apostasy. In 50 years it will be 30%, in another 50 3%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34172729 That said, some business leaders and a couple of Tory ministers gave me what can only be described as an off-message critique of David Cameron’s approach to the migrant crisis over the weekend.
They said that Angela Merkel is creaming off the most economically useful of the asylum seekers, by taking those that have shown the gumption and initiative to risk life and limb by fleeing to Europe.

The crazy Muslims are too few, the real enemy for the people that currently matter in the West (the business class) are the indigenous population, who are highly suspect especially is they have tendencies to organise for radical purposes (economic or nationalist). Only the the need for cannon fodder overcomes the loathing of the elite steering the state for the masses they rule, and necessitates overruling That is why we need a war, a real conventional war with a great power. Only a war can save us.

Kadyrov produces "totalitarian"-like 99% turnout/99% vote results for his current liege lord, who happens to be Putin. The really radical and anti-regime Islamists are "disappeared," but Chechnya has otherwise been implementing what can be described as "Islamism lite" in its internal affairs. Ingushetia has by far Russia's highest unemployment rate, at almost 50%, and the only reason Chechnya is lower at 30% is because of the amount of money that the federal center pours into it.

The Dagestanis are relatively more cosmopolitan. They produce 90% turnout/90% vote results which is more typical of authoritarian Arab regimes (e.g. Mubarak's Egypt), Azerbaijan, etc., i.e. those states which are not hardline enough to solve their Islamist problems in a Nacht und Nebel like fashion. Unemploment is much lower ~10%, which suggests that by and large they can function adequately in an industrial economy. Dagestan's average IQ of ~88 (as per PISA) is just a bit below Turkey's, and far higher than in Kyrgyzstan, which is was so abysmally low on the PISA (~75) that even I am convinced it must have been a fluke.

All this means it is perfectly possibly for Chechens to be a lot more fundamentalist on average than Dagestanis but for it to be less obvious. Considering the crazy over-representation of Chechens in Islamist terrorism around the world, I suspect this is almost certainly the case.

Another thing that is interesting is that, in theory, Chechens should have a higher IQ than Daghestanis, because Chechens do not practice cousin marriage, while most ethnic groups in Daghestan were (and still to a certain extent are) quite fond of it. Chechens also seem to have the most Northern European genes of the ethnic groups in the North Caucasus, which give them their light colouring and make them least ‘Caucasian’-looking (whether because of the women they used to steal from up North, or something else, I am not sure). But if they in fact have higher IQ, it does not seem to have translated into a societal advantage.

If humans were biological beings capable of evolution and, well, being bred (we know it's impossible, because human evolution magically stopped 50,000 or even 100,000 years ago and so all human races are totally equal, except maybe for the higher intelligence of Jews, East Asians and Papuans), then I'd crossbreed Chechens with Northwest Euros (while leaving the latter dominant) just to produce a more aggressive and ethnocentric Western European breed, because I suspect unfortunately Western Europeans (and I'll now include myself into this group) have become too domesticated.

What ethnicity do you think this attractive Russian girl that joined ISIS is? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3336062/I-gave-birth-monster-Russian-mother-ISIS-poster-girl-chained-daughter-try-stop-marrying-jihadi-not-stop-girl-reaching-Syria-praises-terror-atrocities.html

Also what is the socioeconomic position of Tatars in Russia relative to ethnic Russians and other Muslims? They don't strike me as unintelligent (like most Muslim ethnic groups) and they also seem moderate in their practice of religion.

Tatarstan is one of the better-off Russian regions. Tatars outside of Tatarstan also seem to do fine, in my experience. They are the Muslim ethnic group that is the least different from Russians culturally. This has historic roots, as they were both neighbours and a similar kind of agricultural community, unlike other Turkic groups in the regions who were nomads (e.g. Bashkirs). Their level of religiosity is also roughly the same, i.e. the Muslim equivalent of “Christmas and Easter” Christians.

The countries within the Russian/ex Soivet sphere have the most tolerant form of Islam and the countries within the Western sphere / supported by the West have the most extreme form of Islam.

While the Soviets were supporting secular autocrasies, the West was nurturing and supporting Islamist butchers to take on Soviet backed Nationalist Secular autocrats in the Arab world , Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now this Western shortsighted selfisness is biting the West in the ass.

The Soviet Union is dead but the Western powers are stubbornly supporting Islamist thugs in Syria while trying to fight them in Libya and Afghanistan. I guess the hatred for Russia runs even deeper than concern for Islamic hegemony.

Well said. It does seem that countries where Islam is suppressed generate the most 'radicalized' Muslims.

Main stream media did not publish much about Islam before the Bush family came to power, probably because it would have lead to the public being made aware of the plight of the Palestinian people.

Using radicalized beliefs as a weapon is like trying to generate electricity from a tornado. I can't wait to see what comes out of the U.S. Muslim population now that your government and the occupiers of Palestine have made enemies out of them.

Another thing that is interesting is that, in theory, Chechens should have a higher IQ than Daghestanis, because Chechens do not practice cousin marriage, while most ethnic groups in Daghestan were (and still to a certain extent are) quite fond of it. Chechens also seem to have the most Northern European genes of the ethnic groups in the North Caucasus, which give them their light colouring and make them least 'Caucasian'-looking (whether because of the women they used to steal from up North, or something else, I am not sure). But if they in fact have higher IQ, it does not seem to have translated into a societal advantage.

If humans were biological beings capable of evolution and, well, being bred (we know it’s impossible, because human evolution magically stopped 50,000 or even 100,000 years ago and so all human races are totally equal, except maybe for the higher intelligence of Jews, East Asians and Papuans), then I’d crossbreed Chechens with Northwest Euros (while leaving the latter dominant) just to produce a more aggressive and ethnocentric Western European breed, because I suspect unfortunately Western Europeans (and I’ll now include myself into this group) have become too domesticated.

Do you know the Chechens used to be Christians before the 17th century? Do you know Erdogan parents and origins are from Rize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rize. A northeastern Turkish city, well known to be a former Georgian-Laz speaking province. Most of it's inhabitants were georgians 200 years. They still are, we just call them Turks and Muslim now.

That city is now a hotbed of Islamic Turkish movement.

Both Chechens and Rize are really trying to make up for all that time that they were infidels.Which is why some of this HBD bullshit strikes me as hit-and-miss a lot of the time.

Why aren't the worst islamic fundamentalists in Turkey from, say, Istanbul? A city literally brutally conquered by Seljuq warriors a thousand years ago, and has been Muslim ever since. And yet AKP barely reaches 30% popularity in votes there.

Just wait and see. Today 80% of Pakistan wants death for apostasy. In 50 years it will be 30%, in another 50 3%.

Do you know the Chechens used to be Christians before the 17th century?

I wrote they only converted a few centuries ago. It took them quite some time to come around to Wahhabism.

Today 80% of Pakistan wants death for apostasy. In 50 years it will be 30%, in another 50 3%.

Pakistanis have been Muslims for a longer time than Chechens. But in any event, I’m highly doubtful that it will happen.

Turks are part European (actually, having met quite a few of them, I’d think Turks could be predominantly European, albeit a less domesticated version Europeans), but Wahhabism is getting a foothold even among them (and Albanians, Bosniaks, who are basically fully Europeans, but similarly to the Serbs, are a less domesticated version), simply because of the process Razib Khan described.

Do you know the Chechens used to be Christians before the 17th century?

I wrote they only converted a few centuries ago. It took them quite some time to come around to Wahhabism.

Today 80% of Pakistan wants death for apostasy. In 50 years it will be 30%, in another 50 3%.

Pakistanis have been Muslims for a longer time than Chechens. But in any event, I'm highly doubtful that it will happen.

Turks are part European (actually, having met quite a few of them, I'd think Turks could be predominantly European, albeit a less domesticated version Europeans), but Wahhabism is getting a foothold even among them (and Albanians, Bosniaks, who are basically fully Europeans, but similarly to the Serbs, are a less domesticated version), simply because of the process Razib Khan described.

I only met that social attitudes can change in a short amount of time, not to mention a century, independent of genetic change.

Taking out the Wahhabi madrassas, establishing law and order, controlling population growth, will go a long way in defeating islamic fanaticism in the 21st century.

The problem is what Razib Khan described: religious doctrine tends to get more uniform across the religion, and unfortunately it usually means the center imposing its ideas on the periphery.

Now, probably things would be a bit different if Saudi Arabia would be a poor hellhole living off of aid from other Muslim countries. Unfortunately, because of oil, it is not so. This means the periphery (or at least, many people on the periphery) tend to emulate the Saudis. As long as Saudi Arabia exists, the problem remains. So I'd think destroying Saudi Arabia might just work. But I'm not sure enough in this to actually advocate a war against Saudi Arabia (because I think to start a war you need to be very very sure it'll turn out well), especially not with the current Western rules of engagement. (Exterminating a large fraction of Saudis might actually work, though. Probably millions of Germans lying dead on the battlefields and even in German cities was what took out Nazism and even nationalism from Germans, and even changed Japanese behavior a bit, so it might work with the Saudis either.)

I actually think Europeans would make even more terrible Wahhabis than Arabs, because Europeans can be quite zealous in any ideology (Nazism and multiculturalism being two recent examples) and are more efficient in any endeavor (including warfare, terrorism, or building rockets) than Arabs. If indigenous Europeans were to convert to Islam en masse, that would be a disaster for the rest of the world (even for Arabs, who freshly converted Europeans would probably find to be not sufficiently Muslim).

I only met that social attitudes can change in a short amount of time, not to mention a century, independent of genetic change.

Taking out the Wahhabi madrassas, establishing law and order, controlling population growth, will go a long way in defeating islamic fanaticism in the 21st century.

The problem is what Razib Khan described: religious doctrine tends to get more uniform across the religion, and unfortunately it usually means the center imposing its ideas on the periphery.

Now, probably things would be a bit different if Saudi Arabia would be a poor hellhole living off of aid from other Muslim countries. Unfortunately, because of oil, it is not so. This means the periphery (or at least, many people on the periphery) tend to emulate the Saudis. As long as Saudi Arabia exists, the problem remains. So I’d think destroying Saudi Arabia might just work. But I’m not sure enough in this to actually advocate a war against Saudi Arabia (because I think to start a war you need to be very very sure it’ll turn out well), especially not with the current Western rules of engagement. (Exterminating a large fraction of Saudis might actually work, though. Probably millions of Germans lying dead on the battlefields and even in German cities was what took out Nazism and even nationalism from Germans, and even changed Japanese behavior a bit, so it might work with the Saudis either.)

I actually think Europeans would make even more terrible Wahhabis than Arabs, because Europeans can be quite zealous in any ideology (Nazism and multiculturalism being two recent examples) and are more efficient in any endeavor (including warfare, terrorism, or building rockets) than Arabs. If indigenous Europeans were to convert to Islam en masse, that would be a disaster for the rest of the world (even for Arabs, who freshly converted Europeans would probably find to be not sufficiently Muslim).

If Europeans converted to Islam enmasse , they not Arabs, would be controlling Islam. It won't be long before Europeans took over Mecca . Hitler said just this (to Albert Speer), when a delegation of Arabs told him that Europe and the world would have become Mohammedan and if the Muslims had won at the Battle of Tours.

The problem is what Razib Khan described: religious doctrine tends to get more uniform across the religion, and unfortunately it usually means the center imposing its ideas on the periphery.

Now, probably things would be a bit different if Saudi Arabia would be a poor hellhole living off of aid from other Muslim countries. Unfortunately, because of oil, it is not so. This means the periphery (or at least, many people on the periphery) tend to emulate the Saudis. As long as Saudi Arabia exists, the problem remains. So I'd think destroying Saudi Arabia might just work. But I'm not sure enough in this to actually advocate a war against Saudi Arabia (because I think to start a war you need to be very very sure it'll turn out well), especially not with the current Western rules of engagement. (Exterminating a large fraction of Saudis might actually work, though. Probably millions of Germans lying dead on the battlefields and even in German cities was what took out Nazism and even nationalism from Germans, and even changed Japanese behavior a bit, so it might work with the Saudis either.)

I actually think Europeans would make even more terrible Wahhabis than Arabs, because Europeans can be quite zealous in any ideology (Nazism and multiculturalism being two recent examples) and are more efficient in any endeavor (including warfare, terrorism, or building rockets) than Arabs. If indigenous Europeans were to convert to Islam en masse, that would be a disaster for the rest of the world (even for Arabs, who freshly converted Europeans would probably find to be not sufficiently Muslim).

The problem is what Razib Khan described: religious doctrine tends to get more uniform across the religion, and unfortunately it usually means the center imposing its ideas on the periphery.

Now, probably things would be a bit different if Saudi Arabia would be a poor hellhole living off of aid from other Muslim countries. Unfortunately, because of oil, it is not so. This means the periphery (or at least, many people on the periphery) tend to emulate the Saudis. As long as Saudi Arabia exists, the problem remains. So I'd think destroying Saudi Arabia might just work. But I'm not sure enough in this to actually advocate a war against Saudi Arabia (because I think to start a war you need to be very very sure it'll turn out well), especially not with the current Western rules of engagement. (Exterminating a large fraction of Saudis might actually work, though. Probably millions of Germans lying dead on the battlefields and even in German cities was what took out Nazism and even nationalism from Germans, and even changed Japanese behavior a bit, so it might work with the Saudis either.)

I actually think Europeans would make even more terrible Wahhabis than Arabs, because Europeans can be quite zealous in any ideology (Nazism and multiculturalism being two recent examples) and are more efficient in any endeavor (including warfare, terrorism, or building rockets) than Arabs. If indigenous Europeans were to convert to Islam en masse, that would be a disaster for the rest of the world (even for Arabs, who freshly converted Europeans would probably find to be not sufficiently Muslim).

If Europeans converted to Islam enmasse , they not Arabs, would be controlling Islam. It won’t be long before Europeans took over Mecca . Hitler said just this (to Albert Speer), when a delegation of Arabs told him that Europe and the world would have become Mohammedan and if the Muslims had won at the Battle of Tours.

Hitler said just this (to Albert Speer), when a delegation of Arabs told him that Europe and the world would have become Mohammedan and if the Muslims had won at the Battle of Tours.

I find it interesting that the secularist Gibbonites play up the significance of Tours, and to an extreme extent at that, while modern Moslem historians dismiss it ("We were already a spent force...") How would the Vikings have handled the Arabs had they got past Martel?

If Europeans converted to Islam enmasse , they not Arabs, would be controlling Islam. It won't be long before Europeans took over Mecca . Hitler said just this (to Albert Speer), when a delegation of Arabs told him that Europe and the world would have become Mohammedan and if the Muslims had won at the Battle of Tours.

Hitler said just this (to Albert Speer), when a delegation of Arabs told him that Europe and the world would have become Mohammedan and if the Muslims had won at the Battle of Tours.

I find it interesting that the secularist Gibbonites play up the significance of Tours, and to an extreme extent at that, while modern Moslem historians dismiss it (“We were already a spent force…”) How would the Vikings have handled the Arabs had they got past Martel?

Hitler said just this (to Albert Speer), when a delegation of Arabs told him that Europe and the world would have become Mohammedan and if the Muslims had won at the Battle of Tours.

I find it interesting that the secularist Gibbonites play up the significance of Tours, and to an extreme extent at that, while modern Moslem historians dismiss it ("We were already a spent force...") How would the Vikings have handled the Arabs had they got past Martel?

Looks like Anatoly has learned Islam from Dr. Daniel Pipes. I recommend him to study Dr. Murad Hoffman’s 1986 book, ‘Islam: The only Alternative’. I bet Hoffman is far educated and experienced than any so-called “Western Orientalists” including Dr. Bernard Lewis. Dr. Hoffman is a former German ambassador to Morocco and Tunisia. He was also Director of Information for NATO in Brussels.

Islamic Shari’ah commands death penalty only for three crimes, 1) Treason against an Islamic state, 2) pre-planned murder of Muslim or non-Muslim, and 3) robbery of banks and state financial institution. Now, we all know, execution of such criminal are considered “barbarianism) if the criminal happens to be a member of “G-d’s Chosen people”.

Even during the Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) life and the four righteous Caliphs, no one was executed being an atheist, Munafiq (hypocrite or Crypto Muslim).

Islamic Shari’ah has harsh punishment for the habitual criminals which are even less harsh than Jewish Kabbalah. Furthermore, Islamic Shari’ah punishment can only be applied under a true Islamic state, which hardly exist among the 57 Muslim majority states with the exception of Iran – an 80% Islamic in my views.

About 15 years ago in the uk, it was rare to see hooded women, and if they did cover their hair, the cover would be loosely fitting and part of a traditional national costume, now head coverings amongst muslim women are unanimous.

One of my female acquaintances who does happen to look a bit southern but otherwise has no connection to Islam whatsoever got verbally harassed by a Muslim in a supermarket for going about with her face uncovered. This is a very real trend.

I suspect Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan is as bad as the worst of the middle east, the rest of the North Caucasus similar to Turkey and Tatrar/Bashkir areas < 1%.

That is very likely correct.

This is the poll you are referring to: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Actually I notice that it is the same one referenced here. For some reason Razib didn't include the figures for Russia's Muslims (pity I didn't see this, as adjusting the map now would be a lot of work). Anyhow, according to that, 42% of Russian Muslims support sharia, of which 15% favor the death penalty for apostasy, making for 6% of Russian Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy - similar to the figure for Tajikistan.

Of course, as you say, Tatars and Bashkirs together make up the majority of Muslims in Russia, and both are very likely at <2%, so the figures I suspect are probably more like 10-15% for Dagestan and perhaps 25% for Chechnya.

One of my female acquaintances who does happen to look a bit southern but otherwise has no connection to Islam whatsoever got verbally harassed by a Muslim in a supermarket for going about with her face uncovered.

Excuse me, Mr. Karlin. I don’t believe this story. It does not ring true to me. Were you there?

When you say she was harassed for going about with her face uncovered, surely you mean her hair, no? You do understand the difference between the niqab and the hijab, don’t you? Or do you?

This is a very real trend.

A trend, eh? Don’t you need more than one data point to have a “trend”?

Well, the above is enough of a a data point for me to conclude that, unfortunately, you’re full of shit.

Excuse me, Mr. Karlin. I don’t believe this story. It does not ring true to me. Were you there?

When you say she was harassed for going about with her face uncovered, surely you mean her hair, no? You do understand the difference between the niqab and the hijab, don’t you? Or do you?

Someone whom I met, when I was younger, had unprotected sex with a non-Muslim brown girl.

The next morning he went with her to a local pharmacy in the area where she lived in London.

She came outside disgruntled but unsuprised and told him that the pharmacist would not give her the morning after pill and that both would need to do the very difficult thing and find a local white pharmacist.

The white guy could not get the pill from the Muslim pharmacists because he was a guy. The brown girl could not get the pill because they thought she might be Muslim. Eventually they found a pharmacist who would, after visiting about 5 separate premises. The law-abiding pill handing-out pharmacist was a young white lady.

I had the dubious pleasure of living right next to a Muslim majority area of Britain for a couple of years, so I couldn't care less for the uninformed opinions of an SJW ideologue who has no understanding of let alone any practical experience of the cultural codes by which Muslim ghettoes in Europe operate.

One of my female acquaintances who does happen to look a bit southern but otherwise has no connection to Islam whatsoever got verbally harassed by a Muslim in a supermarket for going about with her face uncovered.

Excuse me, Mr. Karlin. I don't believe this story. It does not ring true to me. Were you there?

When you say she was harassed for going about with her face uncovered, surely you mean her hair, no? You do understand the difference between the niqab and the hijab, don't you? Or do you?

This is a very real trend.

A trend, eh? Don't you need more than one data point to have a "trend"?

Well, the above is enough of a a data point for me to conclude that, unfortunately, you're full of shit.

Excuse me, Mr. Karlin. I don’t believe this story. It does not ring true to me. Were you there?

When you say she was harassed for going about with her face uncovered, surely you mean her hair, no? You do understand the difference between the niqab and the hijab, don’t you? Or do you?

Someone whom I met, when I was younger, had unprotected sex with a non-Muslim brown girl.

The next morning he went with her to a local pharmacy in the area where she lived in London.

She came outside disgruntled but unsuprised and told him that the pharmacist would not give her the morning after pill and that both would need to do the very difficult thing and find a local white pharmacist.

The white guy could not get the pill from the Muslim pharmacists because he was a guy. The brown girl could not get the pill because they thought she might be Muslim. Eventually they found a pharmacist who would, after visiting about 5 separate premises. The law-abiding pill handing-out pharmacist was a young white lady.

Even if it is true (which I doubt frankly) what does it have to do with Karlin's story where he said that somebody chastised a girl whom he did not even know for "not covering her face".

Karlin's story is obviously untrue, but even if it were, his subsequent claim that it constitutes a "trend" is pathetic and laughable. Unz.com is such a mixed bag. There are some high quality peple and then these utterly pathetic clowns.

Excuse me, Mr. Karlin. I don’t believe this story. It does not ring true to me. Were you there?

When you say she was harassed for going about with her face uncovered, surely you mean her hair, no? You do understand the difference between the niqab and the hijab, don’t you? Or do you?

Someone whom I met, when I was younger, had unprotected sex with a non-Muslim brown girl.

The next morning he went with her to a local pharmacy in the area where she lived in London.

She came outside disgruntled but unsuprised and told him that the pharmacist would not give her the morning after pill and that both would need to do the very difficult thing and find a local white pharmacist.

The white guy could not get the pill from the Muslim pharmacists because he was a guy. The brown girl could not get the pill because they thought she might be Muslim. Eventually they found a pharmacist who would, after visiting about 5 separate premises. The law-abiding pill handing-out pharmacist was a young white lady.

This is all true. I trust the individual completely.

This is all true. I trust the individual completely.

Even if it is true (which I doubt frankly) what does it have to do with Karlin’s story where he said that somebody chastised a girl whom he did not even know for “not covering her face”.

Karlin’s story is obviously untrue, but even if it were, his subsequent claim that it constitutes a “trend” is pathetic and laughable. Unz.com is such a mixed bag. There are some high quality peple and then these utterly pathetic clowns.

And Reuvsky, you are an authority how? You have a system for determining b.s.? Is it instinct or algorithm?

There is a definite tendency to police "our girls" amongst some groups, particularly when they settle in the West. Whites used to do it too; it's universal.

I have female acquaintances of Pakistani descent and that Desi-policing crap used to annoy the heck out of them. Guys they didn't even know would give them at least big time evil eye for being out with white guys. So yeah, Reuvsky, it rings true to me.

That said, it might have something to do with insecurity. I've been to Dubai with my wife, who looks South Asian. Tamils try to speak Tamil to her; Pakistanis assume she's Gujarati; white guys with brown girl fetishes try to impress her and ask her if she is of Marathi descent. In short, she looks South Asian. We would walk around together and none of the South Asian workers (mostly Pathan or Balooch, I'm guessing, with some Bengalis) would stare at us. If they did acknowledge us, it was friendly. That might be because they considered her as an Indian, and not one of "their" girls. These guys were fresh from the village, so they were from conservative backgrounds. But, arguably, they probably didn't feel the cultural insecurity of that dude from California. Not educated into meta-ethnic identities with grievances- that's something the West is good at doing. Kind of like a Khmer villager doesn't consider himself "Asian" until nice white people in the West tell him he is and he needs to ally with other Asians.

We were an unusual couple (white guy/South Asian girl), so we did get looks- from sleazy British white dudes and straight on stares from South Asian women.

Even if it is true (which I doubt frankly) what does it have to do with Karlin's story where he said that somebody chastised a girl whom he did not even know for "not covering her face".

Karlin's story is obviously untrue, but even if it were, his subsequent claim that it constitutes a "trend" is pathetic and laughable. Unz.com is such a mixed bag. There are some high quality peple and then these utterly pathetic clowns.

Even if it is true (which I doubt frankly) what does it have to do with Karlin’s story where he said that somebody chastised a girl whom he did not even know for “not covering her face”.

If you really doubt it you’re clueless. Since you can’t see the similarity I assume you are.

You’re also showing your age with your lack of understanding of the phrase someone whom I met.

Even if it is true (which I doubt frankly) what does it have to do with Karlin's story where he said that somebody chastised a girl whom he did not even know for "not covering her face".

Karlin's story is obviously untrue, but even if it were, his subsequent claim that it constitutes a "trend" is pathetic and laughable. Unz.com is such a mixed bag. There are some high quality peple and then these utterly pathetic clowns.

And Reuvsky, you are an authority how? You have a system for determining b.s.? Is it instinct or algorithm?

There is a definite tendency to police “our girls” amongst some groups, particularly when they settle in the West. Whites used to do it too; it’s universal.

I have female acquaintances of Pakistani descent and that Desi-policing crap used to annoy the heck out of them. Guys they didn’t even know would give them at least big time evil eye for being out with white guys. So yeah, Reuvsky, it rings true to me.

That said, it might have something to do with insecurity. I’ve been to Dubai with my wife, who looks South Asian. Tamils try to speak Tamil to her; Pakistanis assume she’s Gujarati; white guys with brown girl fetishes try to impress her and ask her if she is of Marathi descent. In short, she looks South Asian. We would walk around together and none of the South Asian workers (mostly Pathan or Balooch, I’m guessing, with some Bengalis) would stare at us. If they did acknowledge us, it was friendly. That might be because they considered her as an Indian, and not one of “their” girls. These guys were fresh from the village, so they were from conservative backgrounds. But, arguably, they probably didn’t feel the cultural insecurity of that dude from California. Not educated into meta-ethnic identities with grievances- that’s something the West is good at doing. Kind of like a Khmer villager doesn’t consider himself “Asian” until nice white people in the West tell him he is and he needs to ally with other Asians.

We were an unusual couple (white guy/South Asian girl), so we did get looks- from sleazy British white dudes and straight on stares from South Asian women.

One of my female acquaintances who does happen to look a bit southern but otherwise has no connection to Islam whatsoever got verbally harassed by a Muslim in a supermarket for going about with her face uncovered.

Excuse me, Mr. Karlin. I don't believe this story. It does not ring true to me. Were you there?

When you say she was harassed for going about with her face uncovered, surely you mean her hair, no? You do understand the difference between the niqab and the hijab, don't you? Or do you?

This is a very real trend.

A trend, eh? Don't you need more than one data point to have a "trend"?

Well, the above is enough of a a data point for me to conclude that, unfortunately, you're full of shit.

I had the dubious pleasure of living right next to a Muslim majority area of Britain for a couple of years, so I couldn’t care less for the uninformed opinions of an SJW ideologue who has no understanding of let alone any practical experience of the cultural codes by which Muslim ghettoes in Europe operate.

Hmm, interesting. Not long ago, maybe a few months ago, I looked up the SJW acronym, as I didn't know what it meant. Now I understand that it's a constellation of liberal/progressive ideas, like radical feminism and gay marriage and so forth, none of which I believe in!

And now, somebody calls me this, as an insult, for the first time in my life! Fascinating.

Okay, my reflexive response to this was to ask you on what basis you concluded I am an "SJW". But actually, I won't pose that question because I know there is no evidence whatsoever that I am an "SJW ideologue", since I am not! But more importantly, it's a distraction from the key question here, which is why you think that you are an expert on Islam.

Besides, your calling me an "SJW ideologue" is just a generic, meaningless insult along the lines of an actual SJW calling either of us a "fascist".

I had the dubious pleasure of living right next to a Muslim majority area of Britain for a couple of years,

Oh, I see, this is what makes you an expert. Okay. Well, what is your level of expertise? Do you, for example, know what the difference between a niqab and a hijab is? Based on what you wrote, I inferred that you did not know the difference. This page seems to explain it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/24118241

or: http://cloudmind.info/hijab-niqab-and-burka-faq/

In short, the hijab does not cover the face. The niqab does.

I recently traveled around Turkey for several weeks. Casual observation suggests that the majority of Turkish women wear the hijab. Probably two thirds or even three quarters. The niqab, on the other hand, is quite rare. Googling various statistics suggest that between 1 and 2 percent of Turkish women wear the niqab. Based on my casual observation, I would have guessed at an even lower figure, but, on reflection, I did spend a fair bit of time in Istanbul, which would be atypical, and there are probably very conservative regions of the country where I did not go where the niqab is more common, so my casual observation would be a bit biased. It is an objective fact that at least 98% of Turkish women do not wear the niqab, and hence, do not cover their faces.

There are a lot of different places in the world and few people have the opportunity to travel extensively. I discovered recently that there is a very useful tool, not ultra-rigorous, mind you, but it gives you an initial feel for things -- I mean google image search. For example, we hear so much about how fanatical an Islamist regime there is in Iran. It is interesting to google image search "women on the street in Iran" and just get a feel for what it looks like.

One of my female acquaintances who does happen to look a bit southern but otherwise has no connection to Islam whatsoever got verbally harassed by a Muslim in a supermarket for going about with her face uncovered. This is a very real trend.

Okay, so this is basically where things stand, Mr. Karlin: If all of the women I observed in a Muslim country like Turkey were going about face uncovered without being "harassed" and all the women who come up in the above google image search in Iran are not covering their faces, and presumably not being harassed, is it reasonable for me to believe that it is at all common for a woman to be harassed in a London supermarket for not covering her face?! That is a very odd story, especially if, as in your anecdote, the Muslim man did not even known the woman! If it was his own family member, say.... but a complete stranger!!!???

So, I did not find the anecdote believable. Granted, I was not there (and apparently neither were you) but even if this did happen once, it is exceedingly hard to fathom your subsequent statement:

This is a very real trend.

Since when is one anecdotal data point a "trend", Mr. Karlin? Is this serious discourse? Is the claim that you lived next to a majority Muslim neighborhood and are thus an expert in Muslim culture a serious claim? Or is it, as I sense, something profoundly unserious? Why are you doing this? (I have a theory as to why, but I would be interested in your answer.)

Oh wait, you’re more than just an SJW, you’re a full-fledged conspiratard.

(Sigh.) The kinds of insults you are hurling at me are quite informative. However, the information they provide is pretty much entirely about you, Mr. Karlin. Not about me.

When somebody hurls the insult "conspiracy theorist" or the silly variant "conspiratard" at somebody, they think they are cataloguing the other person in some derogatory way but, in reality, are self-classifying themselves.

The person who thinks that "conspiracy theorist" is some sort of insult is basically giving a strong tell, signalling what his own level of understanding (or lack thereof) of a certain set of things is. I won't elaborate further on that. It would require a separate note, which I may or may not get around to writing. This comment is already a tad too long, I think.

I had the dubious pleasure of living right next to a Muslim majority area of Britain for a couple of years, so I couldn't care less for the uninformed opinions of an SJW ideologue who has no understanding of let alone any practical experience of the cultural codes by which Muslim ghettoes in Europe operate.

Hmm, interesting. Not long ago, maybe a few months ago, I looked up the SJW acronym, as I didn’t know what it meant. Now I understand that it’s a constellation of liberal/progressive ideas, like radical feminism and gay marriage and so forth, none of which I believe in!

And now, somebody calls me this, as an insult, for the first time in my life! Fascinating.

Okay, my reflexive response to this was to ask you on what basis you concluded I am an “SJW”. But actually, I won’t pose that question because I know there is no evidence whatsoever that I am an “SJW ideologue”, since I am not! But more importantly, it’s a distraction from the key question here, which is why you think that you are an expert on Islam.

Besides, your calling me an “SJW ideologue” is just a generic, meaningless insult along the lines of an actual SJW calling either of us a “fascist”.

I had the dubious pleasure of living right next to a Muslim majority area of Britain for a couple of years,

Oh, I see, this is what makes you an expert. Okay. Well, what is your level of expertise? Do you, for example, know what the difference between a niqab and a hijab is? Based on what you wrote, I inferred that you did not know the difference. This page seems to explain it:

I recently traveled around Turkey for several weeks. Casual observation suggests that the majority of Turkish women wear the hijab. Probably two thirds or even three quarters. The niqab, on the other hand, is quite rare. Googling various statistics suggest that between 1 and 2 percent of Turkish women wear the niqab. Based on my casual observation, I would have guessed at an even lower figure, but, on reflection, I did spend a fair bit of time in Istanbul, which would be atypical, and there are probably very conservative regions of the country where I did not go where the niqab is more common, so my casual observation would be a bit biased. It is an objective fact that at least 98% of Turkish women do not wear the niqab, and hence, do not cover their faces.

There are a lot of different places in the world and few people have the opportunity to travel extensively. I discovered recently that there is a very useful tool, not ultra-rigorous, mind you, but it gives you an initial feel for things — I mean google image search. For example, we hear so much about how fanatical an Islamist regime there is in Iran. It is interesting to google image search “women on the street in Iran” and just get a feel for what it looks like.

One of my female acquaintances who does happen to look a bit southern but otherwise has no connection to Islam whatsoever got verbally harassed by a Muslim in a supermarket for going about with her face uncovered. This is a very real trend.

Okay, so this is basically where things stand, Mr. Karlin: If all of the women I observed in a Muslim country like Turkey were going about face uncovered without being “harassed” and all the women who come up in the above google image search in Iran are not covering their faces, and presumably not being harassed, is it reasonable for me to believe that it is at all common for a woman to be harassed in a London supermarket for not covering her face?! That is a very odd story, especially if, as in your anecdote, the Muslim man did not even known the woman! If it was his own family member, say…. but a complete stranger!!!???

So, I did not find the anecdote believable. Granted, I was not there (and apparently neither were you) but even if this did happen once, it is exceedingly hard to fathom your subsequent statement:

This is a very real trend.

Since when is one anecdotal data point a “trend”, Mr. Karlin? Is this serious discourse? Is the claim that you lived next to a majority Muslim neighborhood and are thus an expert in Muslim culture a serious claim? Or is it, as I sense, something profoundly unserious? Why are you doing this? (I have a theory as to why, but I would be interested in your answer.)

Oh wait, you’re more than just an SJW, you’re a full-fledged conspiratard.

(Sigh.) The kinds of insults you are hurling at me are quite informative. However, the information they provide is pretty much entirely about you, Mr. Karlin. Not about me.

When somebody hurls the insult “conspiracy theorist” or the silly variant “conspiratard” at somebody, they think they are cataloguing the other person in some derogatory way but, in reality, are self-classifying themselves.

The person who thinks that “conspiracy theorist” is some sort of insult is basically giving a strong tell, signalling what his own level of understanding (or lack thereof) of a certain set of things is. I won’t elaborate further on that. It would require a separate note, which I may or may not get around to writing. This comment is already a tad too long, I think.

Maybe that area where Anatoly's happened was populated not by Turks or Iranians, but by some more backward Pakistanis? Or maybe Anatoly misunderstood the situation, and the harrassment was about the woman not covering her hair, or being improperly dressed in some other way?

I mean, the gist of the story is very believeable to me, especially because that's not the first time I heard a similar story about a Muslim neighborhood.

Hmm, interesting. Not long ago, maybe a few months ago, I looked up the SJW acronym, as I didn't know what it meant. Now I understand that it's a constellation of liberal/progressive ideas, like radical feminism and gay marriage and so forth, none of which I believe in!

And now, somebody calls me this, as an insult, for the first time in my life! Fascinating.

Okay, my reflexive response to this was to ask you on what basis you concluded I am an "SJW". But actually, I won't pose that question because I know there is no evidence whatsoever that I am an "SJW ideologue", since I am not! But more importantly, it's a distraction from the key question here, which is why you think that you are an expert on Islam.

Besides, your calling me an "SJW ideologue" is just a generic, meaningless insult along the lines of an actual SJW calling either of us a "fascist".

I had the dubious pleasure of living right next to a Muslim majority area of Britain for a couple of years,

Oh, I see, this is what makes you an expert. Okay. Well, what is your level of expertise? Do you, for example, know what the difference between a niqab and a hijab is? Based on what you wrote, I inferred that you did not know the difference. This page seems to explain it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/24118241

or: http://cloudmind.info/hijab-niqab-and-burka-faq/

In short, the hijab does not cover the face. The niqab does.

I recently traveled around Turkey for several weeks. Casual observation suggests that the majority of Turkish women wear the hijab. Probably two thirds or even three quarters. The niqab, on the other hand, is quite rare. Googling various statistics suggest that between 1 and 2 percent of Turkish women wear the niqab. Based on my casual observation, I would have guessed at an even lower figure, but, on reflection, I did spend a fair bit of time in Istanbul, which would be atypical, and there are probably very conservative regions of the country where I did not go where the niqab is more common, so my casual observation would be a bit biased. It is an objective fact that at least 98% of Turkish women do not wear the niqab, and hence, do not cover their faces.

There are a lot of different places in the world and few people have the opportunity to travel extensively. I discovered recently that there is a very useful tool, not ultra-rigorous, mind you, but it gives you an initial feel for things -- I mean google image search. For example, we hear so much about how fanatical an Islamist regime there is in Iran. It is interesting to google image search "women on the street in Iran" and just get a feel for what it looks like.

One of my female acquaintances who does happen to look a bit southern but otherwise has no connection to Islam whatsoever got verbally harassed by a Muslim in a supermarket for going about with her face uncovered. This is a very real trend.

Okay, so this is basically where things stand, Mr. Karlin: If all of the women I observed in a Muslim country like Turkey were going about face uncovered without being "harassed" and all the women who come up in the above google image search in Iran are not covering their faces, and presumably not being harassed, is it reasonable for me to believe that it is at all common for a woman to be harassed in a London supermarket for not covering her face?! That is a very odd story, especially if, as in your anecdote, the Muslim man did not even known the woman! If it was his own family member, say.... but a complete stranger!!!???

So, I did not find the anecdote believable. Granted, I was not there (and apparently neither were you) but even if this did happen once, it is exceedingly hard to fathom your subsequent statement:

This is a very real trend.

Since when is one anecdotal data point a "trend", Mr. Karlin? Is this serious discourse? Is the claim that you lived next to a majority Muslim neighborhood and are thus an expert in Muslim culture a serious claim? Or is it, as I sense, something profoundly unserious? Why are you doing this? (I have a theory as to why, but I would be interested in your answer.)

Oh wait, you’re more than just an SJW, you’re a full-fledged conspiratard.

(Sigh.) The kinds of insults you are hurling at me are quite informative. However, the information they provide is pretty much entirely about you, Mr. Karlin. Not about me.

When somebody hurls the insult "conspiracy theorist" or the silly variant "conspiratard" at somebody, they think they are cataloguing the other person in some derogatory way but, in reality, are self-classifying themselves.

The person who thinks that "conspiracy theorist" is some sort of insult is basically giving a strong tell, signalling what his own level of understanding (or lack thereof) of a certain set of things is. I won't elaborate further on that. It would require a separate note, which I may or may not get around to writing. This comment is already a tad too long, I think.

Maybe that area where Anatoly’s happened was populated not by Turks or Iranians, but by some more backward Pakistanis? Or maybe Anatoly misunderstood the situation, and the harrassment was about the woman not covering her hair, or being improperly dressed in some other way?

I mean, the gist of the story is very believeable to me, especially because that’s not the first time I heard a similar story about a Muslim neighborhood.

Maybe that area where Anatoly’s happened was populated not by Turks or Iranians, but by some more backward Pakistanis?

Okay, maybe... but Mr. Karlin had the opportunity to specify. And still does. I don't know why you are attempting to answer for him. To be clear, the point I was making was not really about those specific countries. In most of the Islamic world, the wearing of the niqab is very much limited to a minority (often a very small minority) so it seems unlikely that a woman would be chastised publicly in a Western country for failing to "cover her face".

I asked Mr. Karlin whether he knew the difference between the hijab and the niqab. He declined to answer and then represented that he was an expert in Islam on the basis of living next to a Muslim majority area. This seems decidedly unserious to me. Do you disagree? If so, why?

Or maybe Anatoly misunderstood the situation, and the harrassment was about the woman not covering her hair, or being improperly dressed in some other way?

It is quite clear that Mr. Karlin was not present at the incident in question and was recounting something he heard. Regardless, why did Mr. Karlin then claim that the anecdotal incident was a trend? Don't you need more than one data point for a trend? Again, I posed the question to Mr. Karlin and it seems that you ought to let him answer.

I mean, the gist of the story is very believeable to me, especially because that’s not the first time I heard a similar story about a Muslim neighborhood.

So you have heard this story too, huh? I have also heard that there are alligators living in the New York City sewers. But I have never seen one myself. (Apparently, this has been debunked. There are no alligators living in the New York City sewers. It is an urban legend.)

Have you ever personally observed a woman being "harassed" in a supermarket for failing to cover her face?

(Note: the above question admits a yes/no answer. It is a pertinent question. If you decline to answer the question, please to tell me why you decline.)

One more question: In your honest opinion, which is more likely at the present moment in a western country:

(a) A woman is harassed for NOT WEARING a niqab in public.

(b) A woman is harassed for WEARING a niqab in public.

Oh, and here is a final question: Honestly, now.... do you regret butting into this conversation (after all, nobody was talking to you...) and now think you should have let Mr. Karlin speak for himself? After all, Mr. Karlin did not appoint you as his spokesman, did he?

The countries within the Russian/ex Soivet sphere have the most tolerant form of Islam and the countries within the Western sphere / supported by the West have the most extreme form of Islam.

While the Soviets were supporting secular autocrasies, the West was nurturing and supporting Islamist butchers to take on Soviet backed Nationalist Secular autocrats in the Arab world , Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now this Western shortsighted selfisness is biting the West in the ass.

The Soviet Union is dead but the Western powers are stubbornly supporting Islamist thugs in Syria while trying to fight them in Libya and Afghanistan. I guess the hatred for Russia runs even deeper than concern for Islamic hegemony.

Well said. It does seem that countries where Islam is suppressed generate the most ‘radicalized’ Muslims.

Main stream media did not publish much about Islam before the Bush family came to power, probably because it would have lead to the public being made aware of the plight of the Palestinian people.

Using radicalized beliefs as a weapon is like trying to generate electricity from a tornado. I can’t wait to see what comes out of the U.S. Muslim population now that your government and the occupiers of Palestine have made enemies out of them.

Maybe that area where Anatoly's happened was populated not by Turks or Iranians, but by some more backward Pakistanis? Or maybe Anatoly misunderstood the situation, and the harrassment was about the woman not covering her hair, or being improperly dressed in some other way?

I mean, the gist of the story is very believeable to me, especially because that's not the first time I heard a similar story about a Muslim neighborhood.

Maybe that area where Anatoly’s happened was populated not by Turks or Iranians, but by some more backward Pakistanis?

Okay, maybe… but Mr. Karlin had the opportunity to specify. And still does. I don’t know why you are attempting to answer for him. To be clear, the point I was making was not really about those specific countries. In most of the Islamic world, the wearing of the niqab is very much limited to a minority (often a very small minority) so it seems unlikely that a woman would be chastised publicly in a Western country for failing to “cover her face”.

I asked Mr. Karlin whether he knew the difference between the hijab and the niqab. He declined to answer and then represented that he was an expert in Islam on the basis of living next to a Muslim majority area. This seems decidedly unserious to me. Do you disagree? If so, why?

Or maybe Anatoly misunderstood the situation, and the harrassment was about the woman not covering her hair, or being improperly dressed in some other way?

It is quite clear that Mr. Karlin was not present at the incident in question and was recounting something he heard. Regardless, why did Mr. Karlin then claim that the anecdotal incident was a trend? Don’t you need more than one data point for a trend? Again, I posed the question to Mr. Karlin and it seems that you ought to let him answer.

I mean, the gist of the story is very believeable to me, especially because that’s not the first time I heard a similar story about a Muslim neighborhood.

So you have heard this story too, huh? I have also heard that there are alligators living in the New York City sewers. But I have never seen one myself. (Apparently, this has been debunked. There are no alligators living in the New York City sewers. It is an urban legend.)

Have you ever personally observed a woman being “harassed” in a supermarket for failing to cover her face?

(Note: the above question admits a yes/no answer. It is a pertinent question. If you decline to answer the question, please to tell me why you decline.)

One more question: In your honest opinion, which is more likely at the present moment in a western country:

(a) A woman is harassed for NOT WEARING a niqab in public.

(b) A woman is harassed for WEARING a niqab in public.

Oh, and here is a final question: Honestly, now…. do you regret butting into this conversation (after all, nobody was talking to you…) and now think you should have let Mr. Karlin speak for himself? After all, Mr. Karlin did not appoint you as his spokesman, did he?

(1) Yes I know the difference between a hijab and a niqab and you are nowhere near as clever as you think you are for raising the issue. (As a matter of fact there are niqabs aplenty in British Muslim areas).

(2) I never claimed to be an expert on Islam.

(3) No, I was not there personally. My acquaintance referred to a demand to cover up her face but yes of course there is a possibility and perhaps a probability that he didn't specify that and that she used it as a figure of speech. That is completely besides the point, since for any normal person such behavior is unacceptable, and only someone who makes it his life's goal to make excuses for Mohammedan impudence and cultural imperialism in countries where they do not belong would latch on to this detail so tightly.

(4)

One more question: In your honest opinion, which is more likely at the present moment in a western country:

(a) A woman is harassed for NOT WEARING a niqab in public.

(b) A woman is harassed for WEARING a niqab in public.

Implies that that there is anything wrong with (b). If so they are always free to go back to Pakistan far away from all the Islamophobic racism. Hopefully your types could accompany them.

Honestly, now…. do you regret butting into this conversation (after all, nobody was talking to you…) and now think you should have let Mr. Karlin speak for himself? After all, Mr. Karlin did not appoint you as his spokesman, did he?

I'm pissing in my pajamas every night since then.

Look, you're clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but here's a link for you. I just happened to read this story these days, as you can see, it's just a few days older than my original comment.

You seem to be totally uninformed not to realize that Iran and Turkey have little relevance when discussing heavily Muslim British neighborhoods, and also not to realize that the UK is swarming with niqab-wearing women. So much so that the first time I ever saw a niqab first hand (i.e. not on a picture, but with my own eyes) was in London in 2004.

Don’t you need more than one data point for a trend?

Yes, but you can state that something is a trend without proving it. He provided an illustration for that trend. I provided here another with the German court decision. This is not a court of law. We use common sense. I mean, if you are waiting for thousands of written eyewitness accounts certified by an international group of notaries, then you are up for a disappointment.

I have also heard that there are alligators living in the New York City sewers.

Funny, but fortunately we've found at least one example of self-appointed sharia police in Germany. When the German Muslims are way better than British ones (e.g. they rarely if ever wear niqabs, so their rules are way less strict), no surprise, since they came mostly from Turkey, which is almost a European country.

Have you ever personally observed a woman being “harassed” in a supermarket for failing to cover her face?

No. I have also never witnessed a beheading by ISIS. I have no doubt that both do happen in real life.

One more question: In your honest opinion, which is more likely at the present moment in a western country:

(a) A woman is harassed for NOT WEARING a niqab in public.

(b) A woman is harassed for WEARING a niqab in public.

Easy. My answer is a). (Of course it only happens in Muslim neighborhoods.) Western police and courts are quite unforgiving towards 'racists'. They are much more lenient towards Muslims.

Maybe that area where Anatoly’s happened was populated not by Turks or Iranians, but by some more backward Pakistanis?

Okay, maybe... but Mr. Karlin had the opportunity to specify. And still does. I don't know why you are attempting to answer for him. To be clear, the point I was making was not really about those specific countries. In most of the Islamic world, the wearing of the niqab is very much limited to a minority (often a very small minority) so it seems unlikely that a woman would be chastised publicly in a Western country for failing to "cover her face".

I asked Mr. Karlin whether he knew the difference between the hijab and the niqab. He declined to answer and then represented that he was an expert in Islam on the basis of living next to a Muslim majority area. This seems decidedly unserious to me. Do you disagree? If so, why?

Or maybe Anatoly misunderstood the situation, and the harrassment was about the woman not covering her hair, or being improperly dressed in some other way?

It is quite clear that Mr. Karlin was not present at the incident in question and was recounting something he heard. Regardless, why did Mr. Karlin then claim that the anecdotal incident was a trend? Don't you need more than one data point for a trend? Again, I posed the question to Mr. Karlin and it seems that you ought to let him answer.

I mean, the gist of the story is very believeable to me, especially because that’s not the first time I heard a similar story about a Muslim neighborhood.

So you have heard this story too, huh? I have also heard that there are alligators living in the New York City sewers. But I have never seen one myself. (Apparently, this has been debunked. There are no alligators living in the New York City sewers. It is an urban legend.)

Have you ever personally observed a woman being "harassed" in a supermarket for failing to cover her face?

(Note: the above question admits a yes/no answer. It is a pertinent question. If you decline to answer the question, please to tell me why you decline.)

One more question: In your honest opinion, which is more likely at the present moment in a western country:

(a) A woman is harassed for NOT WEARING a niqab in public.

(b) A woman is harassed for WEARING a niqab in public.

Oh, and here is a final question: Honestly, now.... do you regret butting into this conversation (after all, nobody was talking to you...) and now think you should have let Mr. Karlin speak for himself? After all, Mr. Karlin did not appoint you as his spokesman, did he?

Conversing with you is highly tiresome so this is my last response:

(1) Yes I know the difference between a hijab and a niqab and you are nowhere near as clever as you think you are for raising the issue. (As a matter of fact there are niqabs aplenty in British Muslim areas).

(2) I never claimed to be an expert on Islam.

(3) No, I was not there personally. My acquaintance referred to a demand to cover up her face but yes of course there is a possibility and perhaps a probability that he didn’t specify that and that she used it as a figure of speech. That is completely besides the point, since for any normal person such behavior is unacceptable, and only someone who makes it his life’s goal to make excuses for Mohammedan impudence and cultural imperialism in countries where they do not belong would latch on to this detail so tightly.

(4)

One more question: In your honest opinion, which is more likely at the present moment in a western country:

(a) A woman is harassed for NOT WEARING a niqab in public.

(b) A woman is harassed for WEARING a niqab in public.

Implies that that there is anything wrong with (b). If so they are always free to go back to Pakistan far away from all the Islamophobic racism. Hopefully your types could accompany them.

TRANSLATION: "I'm getting my ass kicked in this debate so I'll try to save face by saying that I am withdrawing because the other person is 'tiresome'".

Really, I don't understand why you demean yourself like this. I have to think that all the adults here understand that you want to get out of this conversation because your position is increasingly untenable. It's falling apart. You can't withstand another iteration of this dialogue.

(1) Yes I know the difference between a hijab and a niqab and you are nowhere near as clever as you think you are for raising the issue.

"Attempt to be clever"? Based on what you wrote, it was perfectly reasonable for me to ask you whether you knew the difference between a hijab and a niqab. The hijab is very common and the niqab is quite rare, even in most Islamic countries. Somebody being admonished to "cover her face" is effectively being told to wear the niqab. I am no expert on Islam either, but I instinctively smelled something wrong in this story.

(As a matter of fact there are niqabs aplenty in British Muslim areas).

What does "aplenty" mean? Do you know how many? What's the approximate number?

(2) I never claimed to be an expert on Islam.

Well, maybe not. You said rather truculently that you lived for years near a Muslim majority area as if that gave you some great insights. It reminds of when Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.

That was also a laughing stock, of course...

(3) No, I was not there personally.

Well, I guess you're basically conceding the debate at this point. Moreover, if you lived near such a concentration of Muslims and you never personally saw a Muslim man "harassing" somebody for not covering her face, it might be taken as a sign that this basically doesn't happen. Or at least, not very often...

My acquaintance referred to a demand to cover up her face but yes of course there is a possibility and perhaps a probability that he didn’t specify that and that she used it as a figure of speech.

TRANSLATION: "I was talking out of my ass. I have no idea what happened, if anything. I'm now going to try to bull my way through."

LOL. Since when is "covering one's face" a figure of speech? If he had admonished her to dress more modestly, that could, I guess be a figure of speech, but covering one's face is quite literal in meaning. In short, you're changing your story.

In any case, you are admitting that you did not observe this, you have never observed this, and you don't really know what happened. Nonetheless, since this story was ideologically useful to you, you still went on to say:

This is a very real trend.

Somebody told me they saw an alligator in the New York City sewer. I never saw it myself. I then state that the NYC sewer is crawling with alligators. "It's a very real trend!"

That is completely besides the point, since for any normal person such behavior is unacceptable,

TRANSLATION: "It's completely beside the point whether my anecdote really happened or not. I find it ideologically useful and emotionally satisfying to believe it, so there!"

only someone who makes it his life’s goal to make excuses for Mohammedan impudence and cultural imperialism in countries where they do not belong would latch on to this detail so tightly.

Excuse me. Which detail? Whether the story of the woman being harassed in the supermarket actually happened or not? That detail?

Sure, why get bogged down in such details, eh?

(4)

One more question: In your honest opinion, which is more likely at the present moment in a western country:

(a) A woman is harassed for NOT WEARING a niqab in public.

(b) A woman is harassed for WEARING a niqab in public.

Implies that that there is anything wrong with (b).

Hmm, I don't think that your reading comprehension is normally this bad. I suspect you're agitated. No, my posing the above question does NOT imply that there is anything wrong with (b). I simply asked which is more common, (a) or (b). I did not express any view about whether it is proper or not.

Now, as usual, you didn't answer the question. But the answer is obviously (b). It is much more likely that a woman would be harassed in public in a Western country for wearing a niqab than for not wearing one.

Now, I had not up to this point expressed a view on that, but my view is actually that both (a) and (b) are quite improper. But, okay, you believe that (b) is okay. It's okay to harass a woman for wearing a niqab. I wonder.... in your view, is it okay to harass a woman for going about dressed like this?

Fascinating. While neither of us are claiming to be an expert in Islam, at least I know that Islam is not a race or nationality. It's a religion.

I wonder. Suppose a woman of pure anglo-saxon stock converts to Islam, even a very ultra-orthodox version, and decides to wear a niqab. Mary Smith, say. Would you tell Mary Smith to "go back" to Pakistan?

Would it be okay to harass Mary Smith in a supermarket because of her personal religious choice? If so, why not harass the nuns wearing a nun's habit?

Okay, I know you're not answering -- not because your position is untenable, mind you... sure, you could answer, but it's just because I'm being soooo very tiresome.... but it would be interesting to know how you answer that...

Hopefully your types could accompany them.

It wouldn't do you any good, Karlin. They've got internet in Pakistan. I could inflict the same bitch slapping on you from there.

Implies that that there is anything wrong with (b). If so they are always free to go back to Pakistan far away from all the Islamophobic racism. Hopefully your types could accompany them.

Surely you do not believe this. If a nation does not wish to have a certain minority group in the country or does not approve of a certain cultural ritual then there is a civilized way to go about it. Vote for anti-immigrant politicians, start a social campaign (even if its online) to discourage the niqab, but harassing people on the street is barbarism. I know this is the proverbial slippery slope argument, but the harassment of individuals in public is one step short of physical attacks. And I'm sure you don't condone the neo-nazis in Russia who assault minorities.

(1) Yes I know the difference between a hijab and a niqab and you are nowhere near as clever as you think you are for raising the issue. (As a matter of fact there are niqabs aplenty in British Muslim areas).

(2) I never claimed to be an expert on Islam.

(3) No, I was not there personally. My acquaintance referred to a demand to cover up her face but yes of course there is a possibility and perhaps a probability that he didn't specify that and that she used it as a figure of speech. That is completely besides the point, since for any normal person such behavior is unacceptable, and only someone who makes it his life's goal to make excuses for Mohammedan impudence and cultural imperialism in countries where they do not belong would latch on to this detail so tightly.

(4)

One more question: In your honest opinion, which is more likely at the present moment in a western country:

(a) A woman is harassed for NOT WEARING a niqab in public.

(b) A woman is harassed for WEARING a niqab in public.

Implies that that there is anything wrong with (b). If so they are always free to go back to Pakistan far away from all the Islamophobic racism. Hopefully your types could accompany them.

Conversing with you is highly tiresome so this is my last response:

TRANSLATION: “I’m getting my ass kicked in this debate so I’ll try to save face by saying that I am withdrawing because the other person is ‘tiresome’”.

Really, I don’t understand why you demean yourself like this. I have to think that all the adults here understand that you want to get out of this conversation because your position is increasingly untenable. It’s falling apart. You can’t withstand another iteration of this dialogue.

(1) Yes I know the difference between a hijab and a niqab and you are nowhere near as clever as you think you are for raising the issue.

“Attempt to be clever”? Based on what you wrote, it was perfectly reasonable for me to ask you whether you knew the difference between a hijab and a niqab. The hijab is very common and the niqab is quite rare, even in most Islamic countries. Somebody being admonished to “cover her face” is effectively being told to wear the niqab. I am no expert on Islam either, but I instinctively smelled something wrong in this story.

(As a matter of fact there are niqabs aplenty in British Muslim areas).

What does “aplenty” mean? Do you know how many? What’s the approximate number?

(2) I never claimed to be an expert on Islam.

Well, maybe not. You said rather truculently that you lived for years near a Muslim majority area as if that gave you some great insights. It reminds of when Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.

That was also a laughing stock, of course…

(3) No, I was not there personally.

Well, I guess you’re basically conceding the debate at this point. Moreover, if you lived near such a concentration of Muslims and you never personally saw a Muslim man “harassing” somebody for not covering her face, it might be taken as a sign that this basically doesn’t happen. Or at least, not very often…

My acquaintance referred to a demand to cover up her face but yes of course there is a possibility and perhaps a probability that he didn’t specify that and that she used it as a figure of speech.

TRANSLATION: “I was talking out of my ass. I have no idea what happened, if anything. I’m now going to try to bull my way through.”

LOL. Since when is “covering one’s face” a figure of speech? If he had admonished her to dress more modestly, that could, I guess be a figure of speech, but covering one’s face is quite literal in meaning. In short, you’re changing your story.

In any case, you are admitting that you did not observe this, you have never observed this, and you don’t really know what happened. Nonetheless, since this story was ideologically useful to you, you still went on to say:

This is a very real trend.

Somebody told me they saw an alligator in the New York City sewer. I never saw it myself. I then state that the NYC sewer is crawling with alligators. “It’s a very real trend!”

That is completely besides the point, since for any normal person such behavior is unacceptable,

TRANSLATION: “It’s completely beside the point whether my anecdote really happened or not. I find it ideologically useful and emotionally satisfying to believe it, so there!”

only someone who makes it his life’s goal to make excuses for Mohammedan impudence and cultural imperialism in countries where they do not belong would latch on to this detail so tightly.

Excuse me. Which detail? Whether the story of the woman being harassed in the supermarket actually happened or not? That detail?

Sure, why get bogged down in such details, eh?

(4)

One more question: In your honest opinion, which is more likely at the present moment in a western country:

(a) A woman is harassed for NOT WEARING a niqab in public.

(b) A woman is harassed for WEARING a niqab in public.

Implies that that there is anything wrong with (b).

Hmm, I don’t think that your reading comprehension is normally this bad. I suspect you’re agitated. No, my posing the above question does NOT imply that there is anything wrong with (b). I simply asked which is more common, (a) or (b). I did not express any view about whether it is proper or not.

Now, as usual, you didn’t answer the question. But the answer is obviously (b). It is much more likely that a woman would be harassed in public in a Western country for wearing a niqab than for not wearing one.

Now, I had not up to this point expressed a view on that, but my view is actually that both (a) and (b) are quite improper. But, okay, you believe that (b) is okay. It’s okay to harass a woman for wearing a niqab. I wonder…. in your view, is it okay to harass a woman for going about dressed like this?

Fascinating. While neither of us are claiming to be an expert in Islam, at least I know that Islam is not a race or nationality. It’s a religion.

I wonder. Suppose a woman of pure anglo-saxon stock converts to Islam, even a very ultra-orthodox version, and decides to wear a niqab. Mary Smith, say. Would you tell Mary Smith to “go back” to Pakistan?

Would it be okay to harass Mary Smith in a supermarket because of her personal religious choice? If so, why not harass the nuns wearing a nun’s habit?

Okay, I know you’re not answering — not because your position is untenable, mind you… sure, you could answer, but it’s just because I’m being soooo very tiresome…. but it would be interesting to know how you answer that…

Hopefully your types could accompany them.

It wouldn’t do you any good, Karlin. They’ve got internet in Pakistan. I could inflict the same bitch slapping on you from there.

(1) Yes I know the difference between a hijab and a niqab and you are nowhere near as clever as you think you are for raising the issue. (As a matter of fact there are niqabs aplenty in British Muslim areas).

(2) I never claimed to be an expert on Islam.

(3) No, I was not there personally. My acquaintance referred to a demand to cover up her face but yes of course there is a possibility and perhaps a probability that he didn't specify that and that she used it as a figure of speech. That is completely besides the point, since for any normal person such behavior is unacceptable, and only someone who makes it his life's goal to make excuses for Mohammedan impudence and cultural imperialism in countries where they do not belong would latch on to this detail so tightly.

(4)

One more question: In your honest opinion, which is more likely at the present moment in a western country:

(a) A woman is harassed for NOT WEARING a niqab in public.

(b) A woman is harassed for WEARING a niqab in public.

Implies that that there is anything wrong with (b). If so they are always free to go back to Pakistan far away from all the Islamophobic racism. Hopefully your types could accompany them.

Implies that that there is anything wrong with (b). If so they are always free to go back to Pakistan far away from all the Islamophobic racism. Hopefully your types could accompany them.

Surely you do not believe this. If a nation does not wish to have a certain minority group in the country or does not approve of a certain cultural ritual then there is a civilized way to go about it. Vote for anti-immigrant politicians, start a social campaign (even if its online) to discourage the niqab, but harassing people on the street is barbarism. I know this is the proverbial slippery slope argument, but the harassment of individuals in public is one step short of physical attacks. And I’m sure you don’t condone the neo-nazis in Russia who assault minorities.

I know this is the proverbial slippery slope argument, but the harassment of individuals in public is one step short of physical attacks.

Actually, I don’t see this as a “slippery slope argument”. The slippery slope argument is that one thing leads to another that leads to another and so on. No, really, harassing women in public is something that will lead directly to violence! Directly.

I mean, once you consider that some woman that you harass or insult in public is surely somebody else’s sister, or their mother — it’s pretty clear that if you make a habit of doing this, it will inevitably lead to violence. And that’s not a commentary on Islamic culture. In what culture do you know of that you will not have problems going around insulting their womenfolk? Insult somebody’s mother in a Catholic country in Latin America….

You can also quite easily imagine a scenario here where you have a young British born Muslim who would like to assimilate, but his mother wears the traditional dress. The young person would prefer for his mother to dress in a western manner even, but if somebody comes up to his mother and insults her for dressing the way she dresses….Really, if Mr. Karlin or anybody else is not ready for a physical fight, he should certainly desist from this behavior.

And I’m sure you don’t condone the neo-nazis in Russia who assault minorities.

I would hope so, but I’m not as sure as you are. At this point, Karlin has spoken approvingly of behavior that amounts to hooliganism.

Is there any evidence of harrassment endured by Muslim women in Western countries?

I tried to verify Anatoly Karlin's claim that the anecdote he told, of a woman being harassed in a public place for not covering her face. In London. The first step was to use google. I searched the string "Muslim woman harassed for not wearing niqab in london" or something like that. Try it:

Or try any similar search. Everything that comes up is aggression against Muslim women for being dressed as Muslims. The "very real trend" that Karlin claims exists, of women being harassed for being dressed in a western fashion -- seems to exist only in Anatoly Karlin's mind.

All the harassment taking place in this vein in the west is Muslim women being harassed for wearing their traditional garments. And, in general, all the violence is being inflicted by the West against Muslims, not the other way round. Karlin seems to live in a kind of Bizarro world in which "man bites dog" is the norm rather than the exception.

Is there any evidence of harrassment endured by Muslim women in Western countries?

Is there any evidence of harrassment endured by Muslim women in Western countries?

I tried to verify Anatoly Karlin’s claim that the anecdote he told, of a woman being harassed in a public place for not covering her face. In London. The first step was to use google. I searched the string “Muslim woman harassed for not wearing niqab in london” or something like that. Try it:

Or try any similar search. Everything that comes up is aggression against Muslim women for being dressed as Muslims. The “very real trend” that Karlin claims exists, of women being harassed for being dressed in a western fashion — seems to exist only in Anatoly Karlin’s mind.

All the harassment taking place in this vein in the west is Muslim women being harassed for wearing their traditional garments. And, in general, all the violence is being inflicted by the West against Muslims, not the other way round. Karlin seems to live in a kind of Bizarro world in which “man bites dog” is the norm rather than the exception.

This is one of the hits for your search, apparently it's two black women attacking a hijab-wearing woman on a London bus. At least, looking at the cctv pictures. It has a couple of hits on your Google search.

Another story with multiple hits is an "Islamophobic" attack by a certain Michael Ayoade. Mr. Ayoade seems to be black on the cctv pictures released of him (for some obscure or not so obscure reason most articles seem to use cctv pictures only, I have found normal pictures of a black person called Michael Ayoade, but didn't spend time on checking if it was the same person, I guess the family name makes it clear anyway). This is a two year old story, but has multiple hits.

Then there's this incident, where three (apparently white) women allegedly attacked a Muslim woman, and then the police didn't help them, but instead laughed at them. I'm not sure what came of it, because apparently there was a great discrepancy between what the police and the alleged attackers said and what the alleged victim said. In any event, that's one data point. It also had multiple hits.

I'm not sure if I was interested in stories of black women or men attacking Muslim women, but that's what I mostly found on the top page of your search.

Maybe that area where Anatoly’s happened was populated not by Turks or Iranians, but by some more backward Pakistanis?

Okay, maybe... but Mr. Karlin had the opportunity to specify. And still does. I don't know why you are attempting to answer for him. To be clear, the point I was making was not really about those specific countries. In most of the Islamic world, the wearing of the niqab is very much limited to a minority (often a very small minority) so it seems unlikely that a woman would be chastised publicly in a Western country for failing to "cover her face".

I asked Mr. Karlin whether he knew the difference between the hijab and the niqab. He declined to answer and then represented that he was an expert in Islam on the basis of living next to a Muslim majority area. This seems decidedly unserious to me. Do you disagree? If so, why?

Or maybe Anatoly misunderstood the situation, and the harrassment was about the woman not covering her hair, or being improperly dressed in some other way?

It is quite clear that Mr. Karlin was not present at the incident in question and was recounting something he heard. Regardless, why did Mr. Karlin then claim that the anecdotal incident was a trend? Don't you need more than one data point for a trend? Again, I posed the question to Mr. Karlin and it seems that you ought to let him answer.

I mean, the gist of the story is very believeable to me, especially because that’s not the first time I heard a similar story about a Muslim neighborhood.

So you have heard this story too, huh? I have also heard that there are alligators living in the New York City sewers. But I have never seen one myself. (Apparently, this has been debunked. There are no alligators living in the New York City sewers. It is an urban legend.)

Have you ever personally observed a woman being "harassed" in a supermarket for failing to cover her face?

(Note: the above question admits a yes/no answer. It is a pertinent question. If you decline to answer the question, please to tell me why you decline.)

One more question: In your honest opinion, which is more likely at the present moment in a western country:

(a) A woman is harassed for NOT WEARING a niqab in public.

(b) A woman is harassed for WEARING a niqab in public.

Oh, and here is a final question: Honestly, now.... do you regret butting into this conversation (after all, nobody was talking to you...) and now think you should have let Mr. Karlin speak for himself? After all, Mr. Karlin did not appoint you as his spokesman, did he?

Honestly, now…. do you regret butting into this conversation (after all, nobody was talking to you…) and now think you should have let Mr. Karlin speak for himself? After all, Mr. Karlin did not appoint you as his spokesman, did he?

I’m pissing in my pajamas every night since then.

Look, you’re clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but here’s a link for you. I just happened to read this story these days, as you can see, it’s just a few days older than my original comment.

You seem to be totally uninformed not to realize that Iran and Turkey have little relevance when discussing heavily Muslim British neighborhoods, and also not to realize that the UK is swarming with niqab-wearing women. So much so that the first time I ever saw a niqab first hand (i.e. not on a picture, but with my own eyes) was in London in 2004.

Don’t you need more than one data point for a trend?

Yes, but you can state that something is a trend without proving it. He provided an illustration for that trend. I provided here another with the German court decision. This is not a court of law. We use common sense. I mean, if you are waiting for thousands of written eyewitness accounts certified by an international group of notaries, then you are up for a disappointment.

I have also heard that there are alligators living in the New York City sewers.

Funny, but fortunately we’ve found at least one example of self-appointed sharia police in Germany. When the German Muslims are way better than British ones (e.g. they rarely if ever wear niqabs, so their rules are way less strict), no surprise, since they came mostly from Turkey, which is almost a European country.

Have you ever personally observed a woman being “harassed” in a supermarket for failing to cover her face?

No. I have also never witnessed a beheading by ISIS. I have no doubt that both do happen in real life.

One more question: In your honest opinion, which is more likely at the present moment in a western country:

(a) A woman is harassed for NOT WEARING a niqab in public.

(b) A woman is harassed for WEARING a niqab in public.

Easy. My answer is a). (Of course it only happens in Muslim neighborhoods.) Western police and courts are quite unforgiving towards ‘racists’. They are much more lenient towards Muslims.

I looked at this and am rather flabbergasted by the example you provide. The head of the "Sharia patrol" in question is a radical Jihadist Muslim by the name of Sven Lau(!!!) Here is the provided picture of Herr Lau.

Sven has a wikipedia page in German. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Lau

On this page, it says that Sven was born in 1980 in a Catholic family in the Dusseldorf area. He converted to Islam at some point. It's fascinating when you go further down the rabbit hole. The radical Islamist preacher who converted Sven is a man by the name of Pierre Vogel, who aside from being a radical Islamist preacher, is also a boxer or ex-boxer, who converted to Islam in 2001. Vogel is a pure German, it seems, this is all from his wikipedia page in English:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Vogel

So this boxer, Pierre Vogel, is Sven Lau's go-to guy for Islamic theology, apparently. Really fascinating. You declined to mention that the activities of these people are roundly condemned by actual bona fide Muslims in Germany -- at least, by that, I mean people who were born into Islam, for whom it really is their culture and the faith of their forefathers.

A film of their "patrol" appeared on YouTube - but the action was condemned by the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, who said it was "harmful to Muslims".

The above is a direct quote from the article you provided.

Now, to anybody who was not born yesterday, the Sven Lau character and Pierre Vogel give off a very funky smell. They are, quite evidently, agents provocateurs, of some sort. Sven Lau has been to Syria and recruited people to go fight with ISIS in Syria. He's probably a Mossad asset, or, at least generally, a Deep State operative of some sort or other.. That, by the way, also explains why they are able to operate with impunity. It likely has nothing to do with the authorities being lenient to Muslims. You see, these "Muslims" are Deep State agents.

To take the behavior of people like this as examples of the way Muslims behave is rather laughable. Of course, to take an incident in Germany as proof of some sort of "trend" in London is also pretty darned tenuous.

When the German Muslims are way better than British ones (e.g. they rarely if ever wear niqabs, so their rules are way less strict), no surprise, since they came mostly from Turkey,

Dude, these people like Sven Lau, and his mentor Pierre Vogel, did not come from Turkey even! They are Germans!

They are Germans dressing up and pretending to be Muslims really. And the actual Muslims denounce their behavior!

Have you ever personally observed a woman being “harassed” in a supermarket for failing to cover her face?

No. I have also never witnessed a beheading by ISIS. I have no doubt that both do happen in real life.

Actually, it's an open secret that the ISIS beheading videos are fake. For example, look at this page. http://libyanwarthetruth.com/isis-beheading-video-libya-hoax

Watch the video on the page. It's completely obvious that it's fake. Look at any of them. You can actually realize this based on common sense reasoning. What genuine political movement makes videos that portray themselves as villains out of a comic book? Just go try to look at the propaganda that came out of the Third Reich or Soviet Russia. No matter what was actually going on, they did not make films that portrayed themselves as pure evil. Their enemies, yes, but not themselves!

By the way, you do realize that German soldiers did not bayonet Belgian babies in 1914, don't you?

Oh, just to be clear... I'm sure ISIS kills people. But I assume they shoot them and don't bother to film it. It stands to reason. It's a real hassle to behead somebody if you've got a gun and can just shoot them.

Is there any evidence of harrassment endured by Muslim women in Western countries?

I tried to verify Anatoly Karlin's claim that the anecdote he told, of a woman being harassed in a public place for not covering her face. In London. The first step was to use google. I searched the string "Muslim woman harassed for not wearing niqab in london" or something like that. Try it:

Or try any similar search. Everything that comes up is aggression against Muslim women for being dressed as Muslims. The "very real trend" that Karlin claims exists, of women being harassed for being dressed in a western fashion -- seems to exist only in Anatoly Karlin's mind.

All the harassment taking place in this vein in the west is Muslim women being harassed for wearing their traditional garments. And, in general, all the violence is being inflicted by the West against Muslims, not the other way round. Karlin seems to live in a kind of Bizarro world in which "man bites dog" is the norm rather than the exception.

What you're calling "Bizarro world" is what other people call the reality-based community. It's a world in which facts aren't true simply by virtue of claiming them repeatedly. It's because they can be verified.

Don’t you need more than one data point for a trend?

Yes, but you can state that something is a trend without proving it.

Yes, you can state something without proving it, but in my Bizarro world, if I request that somebody back up such a claim, they should be willing to so -- at least if they want to be taken seriously in an intellectual discussion.

He provided an illustration for that trend.

But I thought you agreed that you do need more than one data point for a trend. Now, you don't believe that any more? Which is your position?

In any case, he did not provide even one data point, since, when pressed, he admits that he was not there and is not sure what really happened.

The story of the woman being harassed in the London supermarket has all the hallmarks of an urban legend. I mean, a key characteristic of an urban legend is that it's easy to find somebody who "knows somebody who saw X" but you can never pin down somebody who actually saw X. For example, Karlin claims that he knows somebody personally to whom this happened, but I would bet serious money that if he confronted her with it, she would end up saying that it didn't happen specifically to her, but to a friend of hers.

That's the way urban legends work, the account is always second-hand. As for your claim that the U.K. is "swarming" with niqab wearing women, I am quite sure that is untrue. I understand that the very notion that you should back up such a claim if requested is an extremely novel concept to you. Bizarro, you say.

Anyway, regardless of that.... Dude, Karlin has already conceded the debate. It shows rather poor judgment on your part to try to pick up the mantle for him. You really ought to drop this now. I don't really want to have to spank you any more. It's time consuming, after all. I may not bother any more. I think the point has been made.

Is there any evidence of harrassment endured by Muslim women in Western countries?

I tried to verify Anatoly Karlin's claim that the anecdote he told, of a woman being harassed in a public place for not covering her face. In London. The first step was to use google. I searched the string "Muslim woman harassed for not wearing niqab in london" or something like that. Try it:

Or try any similar search. Everything that comes up is aggression against Muslim women for being dressed as Muslims. The "very real trend" that Karlin claims exists, of women being harassed for being dressed in a western fashion -- seems to exist only in Anatoly Karlin's mind.

All the harassment taking place in this vein in the west is Muslim women being harassed for wearing their traditional garments. And, in general, all the violence is being inflicted by the West against Muslims, not the other way round. Karlin seems to live in a kind of Bizarro world in which "man bites dog" is the norm rather than the exception.

This is one of the hits for your search, apparently it’s two black women attacking a hijab-wearing woman on a London bus. At least, looking at the cctv pictures. It has a couple of hits on your Google search.

Another story with multiple hits is an “Islamophobic” attack by a certain Michael Ayoade. Mr. Ayoade seems to be black on the cctv pictures released of him (for some obscure or not so obscure reason most articles seem to use cctv pictures only, I have found normal pictures of a black person called Michael Ayoade, but didn’t spend time on checking if it was the same person, I guess the family name makes it clear anyway). This is a two year old story, but has multiple hits.

Then there’s this incident, where three (apparently white) women allegedly attacked a Muslim woman, and then the police didn’t help them, but instead laughed at them. I’m not sure what came of it, because apparently there was a great discrepancy between what the police and the alleged attackers said and what the alleged victim said. In any event, that’s one data point. It also had multiple hits.

I’m not sure if I was interested in stories of black women or men attacking Muslim women, but that’s what I mostly found on the top page of your search.

Honestly, now…. do you regret butting into this conversation (after all, nobody was talking to you…) and now think you should have let Mr. Karlin speak for himself? After all, Mr. Karlin did not appoint you as his spokesman, did he?

I'm pissing in my pajamas every night since then.

Look, you're clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but here's a link for you. I just happened to read this story these days, as you can see, it's just a few days older than my original comment.

You seem to be totally uninformed not to realize that Iran and Turkey have little relevance when discussing heavily Muslim British neighborhoods, and also not to realize that the UK is swarming with niqab-wearing women. So much so that the first time I ever saw a niqab first hand (i.e. not on a picture, but with my own eyes) was in London in 2004.

Don’t you need more than one data point for a trend?

Yes, but you can state that something is a trend without proving it. He provided an illustration for that trend. I provided here another with the German court decision. This is not a court of law. We use common sense. I mean, if you are waiting for thousands of written eyewitness accounts certified by an international group of notaries, then you are up for a disappointment.

I have also heard that there are alligators living in the New York City sewers.

Funny, but fortunately we've found at least one example of self-appointed sharia police in Germany. When the German Muslims are way better than British ones (e.g. they rarely if ever wear niqabs, so their rules are way less strict), no surprise, since they came mostly from Turkey, which is almost a European country.

Have you ever personally observed a woman being “harassed” in a supermarket for failing to cover her face?

No. I have also never witnessed a beheading by ISIS. I have no doubt that both do happen in real life.

One more question: In your honest opinion, which is more likely at the present moment in a western country:

(a) A woman is harassed for NOT WEARING a niqab in public.

(b) A woman is harassed for WEARING a niqab in public.

Easy. My answer is a). (Of course it only happens in Muslim neighborhoods.) Western police and courts are quite unforgiving towards 'racists'. They are much more lenient towards Muslims.

here’s a link for you

I looked at this and am rather flabbergasted by the example you provide. The head of the “Sharia patrol” in question is a radical Jihadist Muslim by the name of Sven Lau(!!!) Here is the provided picture of Herr Lau.

On this page, it says that Sven was born in 1980 in a Catholic family in the Dusseldorf area. He converted to Islam at some point. It’s fascinating when you go further down the rabbit hole. The radical Islamist preacher who converted Sven is a man by the name of Pierre Vogel, who aside from being a radical Islamist preacher, is also a boxer or ex-boxer, who converted to Islam in 2001. Vogel is a pure German, it seems, this is all from his wikipedia page in English:

So this boxer, Pierre Vogel, is Sven Lau’s go-to guy for Islamic theology, apparently. Really fascinating. You declined to mention that the activities of these people are roundly condemned by actual bona fide Muslims in Germany — at least, by that, I mean people who were born into Islam, for whom it really is their culture and the faith of their forefathers.

A film of their “patrol” appeared on YouTube – but the action was condemned by the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, who said it was “harmful to Muslims”.

The above is a direct quote from the article you provided.

Now, to anybody who was not born yesterday, the Sven Lau character and Pierre Vogel give off a very funky smell. They are, quite evidently, agents provocateurs, of some sort. Sven Lau has been to Syria and recruited people to go fight with ISIS in Syria. He’s probably a Mossad asset, or, at least generally, a Deep State operative of some sort or other.. That, by the way, also explains why they are able to operate with impunity. It likely has nothing to do with the authorities being lenient to Muslims. You see, these “Muslims” are Deep State agents.

To take the behavior of people like this as examples of the way Muslims behave is rather laughable. Of course, to take an incident in Germany as proof of some sort of “trend” in London is also pretty darned tenuous.

When the German Muslims are way better than British ones (e.g. they rarely if ever wear niqabs, so their rules are way less strict), no surprise, since they came mostly from Turkey,

Dude, these people like Sven Lau, and his mentor Pierre Vogel, did not come from Turkey even! They are Germans!

They are Germans dressing up and pretending to be Muslims really. And the actual Muslims denounce their behavior!

Have you ever personally observed a woman being “harassed” in a supermarket for failing to cover her face?

No. I have also never witnessed a beheading by ISIS. I have no doubt that both do happen in real life.

Watch the video on the page. It’s completely obvious that it’s fake. Look at any of them. You can actually realize this based on common sense reasoning. What genuine political movement makes videos that portray themselves as villains out of a comic book? Just go try to look at the propaganda that came out of the Third Reich or Soviet Russia. No matter what was actually going on, they did not make films that portrayed themselves as pure evil. Their enemies, yes, but not themselves!

By the way, you do realize that German soldiers did not bayonet Belgian babies in 1914, don’t you?

Oh, just to be clear… I’m sure ISIS kills people. But I assume they shoot them and don’t bother to film it. It stands to reason. It’s a real hassle to behead somebody if you’ve got a gun and can just shoot them.

What you’re calling “Bizarro world” is what other people call the reality-based community. It’s a world in which facts aren’t true simply by virtue of claiming them repeatedly. It’s because they can be verified.

Don’t you need more than one data point for a trend?

Yes, but you can state that something is a trend without proving it.

Yes, you can state something without proving it, but in my Bizarro world, if I request that somebody back up such a claim, they should be willing to so — at least if they want to be taken seriously in an intellectual discussion.

He provided an illustration for that trend.

But I thought you agreed that you do need more than one data point for a trend. Now, you don’t believe that any more? Which is your position?

In any case, he did not provide even one data point, since, when pressed, he admits that he was not there and is not sure what really happened.

The story of the woman being harassed in the London supermarket has all the hallmarks of an urban legend. I mean, a key characteristic of an urban legend is that it’s easy to find somebody who “knows somebody who saw X” but you can never pin down somebody who actually saw X. For example, Karlin claims that he knows somebody personally to whom this happened, but I would bet serious money that if he confronted her with it, she would end up saying that it didn’t happen specifically to her, but to a friend of hers.

That’s the way urban legends work, the account is always second-hand. As for your claim that the U.K. is “swarming” with niqab wearing women, I am quite sure that is untrue. I understand that the very notion that you should back up such a claim if requested is an extremely novel concept to you. Bizarro, you say.

Anyway, regardless of that…. Dude, Karlin has already conceded the debate. It shows rather poor judgment on your part to try to pick up the mantle for him. You really ought to drop this now. I don’t really want to have to spank you any more. It’s time consuming, after all. I may not bother any more. I think the point has been made.

TRANSLATION: "I'm getting my ass kicked in this debate so I'll try to save face by saying that I am withdrawing because the other person is 'tiresome'".

Really, I don't understand why you demean yourself like this. I have to think that all the adults here understand that you want to get out of this conversation because your position is increasingly untenable. It's falling apart. You can't withstand another iteration of this dialogue.

(1) Yes I know the difference between a hijab and a niqab and you are nowhere near as clever as you think you are for raising the issue.

"Attempt to be clever"? Based on what you wrote, it was perfectly reasonable for me to ask you whether you knew the difference between a hijab and a niqab. The hijab is very common and the niqab is quite rare, even in most Islamic countries. Somebody being admonished to "cover her face" is effectively being told to wear the niqab. I am no expert on Islam either, but I instinctively smelled something wrong in this story.

(As a matter of fact there are niqabs aplenty in British Muslim areas).

What does "aplenty" mean? Do you know how many? What's the approximate number?

(2) I never claimed to be an expert on Islam.

Well, maybe not. You said rather truculently that you lived for years near a Muslim majority area as if that gave you some great insights. It reminds of when Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.

That was also a laughing stock, of course...

(3) No, I was not there personally.

Well, I guess you're basically conceding the debate at this point. Moreover, if you lived near such a concentration of Muslims and you never personally saw a Muslim man "harassing" somebody for not covering her face, it might be taken as a sign that this basically doesn't happen. Or at least, not very often...

My acquaintance referred to a demand to cover up her face but yes of course there is a possibility and perhaps a probability that he didn’t specify that and that she used it as a figure of speech.

TRANSLATION: "I was talking out of my ass. I have no idea what happened, if anything. I'm now going to try to bull my way through."

LOL. Since when is "covering one's face" a figure of speech? If he had admonished her to dress more modestly, that could, I guess be a figure of speech, but covering one's face is quite literal in meaning. In short, you're changing your story.

In any case, you are admitting that you did not observe this, you have never observed this, and you don't really know what happened. Nonetheless, since this story was ideologically useful to you, you still went on to say:

This is a very real trend.

Somebody told me they saw an alligator in the New York City sewer. I never saw it myself. I then state that the NYC sewer is crawling with alligators. "It's a very real trend!"

That is completely besides the point, since for any normal person such behavior is unacceptable,

TRANSLATION: "It's completely beside the point whether my anecdote really happened or not. I find it ideologically useful and emotionally satisfying to believe it, so there!"

only someone who makes it his life’s goal to make excuses for Mohammedan impudence and cultural imperialism in countries where they do not belong would latch on to this detail so tightly.

Excuse me. Which detail? Whether the story of the woman being harassed in the supermarket actually happened or not? That detail?

Sure, why get bogged down in such details, eh?

(4)

One more question: In your honest opinion, which is more likely at the present moment in a western country:

(a) A woman is harassed for NOT WEARING a niqab in public.

(b) A woman is harassed for WEARING a niqab in public.

Implies that that there is anything wrong with (b).

Hmm, I don't think that your reading comprehension is normally this bad. I suspect you're agitated. No, my posing the above question does NOT imply that there is anything wrong with (b). I simply asked which is more common, (a) or (b). I did not express any view about whether it is proper or not.

Now, as usual, you didn't answer the question. But the answer is obviously (b). It is much more likely that a woman would be harassed in public in a Western country for wearing a niqab than for not wearing one.

Now, I had not up to this point expressed a view on that, but my view is actually that both (a) and (b) are quite improper. But, okay, you believe that (b) is okay. It's okay to harass a woman for wearing a niqab. I wonder.... in your view, is it okay to harass a woman for going about dressed like this?

Fascinating. While neither of us are claiming to be an expert in Islam, at least I know that Islam is not a race or nationality. It's a religion.

I wonder. Suppose a woman of pure anglo-saxon stock converts to Islam, even a very ultra-orthodox version, and decides to wear a niqab. Mary Smith, say. Would you tell Mary Smith to "go back" to Pakistan?

Would it be okay to harass Mary Smith in a supermarket because of her personal religious choice? If so, why not harass the nuns wearing a nun's habit?

Okay, I know you're not answering -- not because your position is untenable, mind you... sure, you could answer, but it's just because I'm being soooo very tiresome.... but it would be interesting to know how you answer that...

Hopefully your types could accompany them.

It wouldn't do you any good, Karlin. They've got internet in Pakistan. I could inflict the same bitch slapping on you from there.

Conversing with you is highly tiresome so this is my last response:

TRANSLATION: “I’m getting my ass kicked in this debate so I’ll try to save face by saying that I am withdrawing because the other person is ‘tiresome’”.

No, AK’s comment is valid at its face. Some people have limits in their patience, when it comes to interacting with fools.

Blogroll

This is not so much meant to be comprehensive as to illustrate the themes and individual thinkers whom I follow and am inspired by.

I do not bother including any MSM outlets, since I’m sure they can do just fine without my publicity.

Blogs which I consider to be particularly good and/or prominent are highlighted in bold, and blogs that appear to have gone dormant appear at the end in italics. While I try to keep these things objective, if you include me in your blogroll that does vastly increase the chances that I’ll reciprocate.